On Thu 09 Apr 2009 at 04:01PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
>
> Why do you want to have packages that don't install in zones, rather
> than having some of the contents of the package not install in a zone?
fwiw, Bart and I don't see eye to eye on this 100%. Or maybe
it's better to admit: "I have vague concerns" :)
I think there are nasty things which can happen in either direction.
- If you allow packages to be installed, but empty, then
the presence or absence of such a package can not be used as
an indicator of availability of features. It gets to the
problem of "what does installed actually mean"? While I'm
not a huge advocate of using the presence of a package as
a feature test, I fear that said ship has sailed. Maybe not.
- If you disallow some packages from being installed, then packagers
have a new and exciting decision to make, which they will often
make incorrectly. And anything which comes to depend upon such
a package (even erroneously) will transitively inherit the
uninstallability, since its dependencies cannot be met.
-dp
--
Daniel Price, Solaris Kernel Engineering http://blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
