* Joseph Di Pol <[email protected]> [2009-02-28 00:49]: > [email protected] wrote: >>> The current SMF Actuator implementation provides the ability for >>> a package installation (or removal or update) to trigger code to be >>> executed. >> >> The actuators don't exist to execute code, you've reversed cause and >> effect. > > But they do provide that capability. And they've been proposed > as a solution if none of the other "you-don't-need-package-scripts" > solutions are practical. > > So let's look at an example: > > When the user installs my application into a user image I want an icon > to appear on the user's desktop. I need to support Linux, Mac, > Windows, etc. > > How can I do that? > > But I think I have a valid need here. And I think the > UserImageActuator is a reasonable compromise. I know it's not > perfect, and the SMF implementation is more robust. But I also think > the requirements and risk/benefit trade offs are different for > user images than for system images.
Why wouldn't file ... desktop_icon=true with known safe handling be sufficient? The point that's being made is that arbitrariness implies lack of safety. How many use cases are known at this time? - Stephen _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
