Dan Price wrote:
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.
In particular, it means that all group packages need to come in
multiple sets. Image a package that depends on all packages that
are needed for the liveCD image... that package could not be
installed in a zone if some of those packages were "global
zone only".
There are many packages that may choose to have some content
for all types of images, and additional content for zones
and global images...
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
"You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
