On Jun 11, 2009, at 1:11 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Shawn Walker <[email protected]> [2009-06-11 17:29]:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Greetings,
The following webrev contains fixes for the following issues:
5299 pkg.5, pkg.1 needs definition of publisher, repository, and
examples
webrev:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swalker/pkg-5299/
I've re-uploaded this webrev, if someone could review it, that
would be great.
pkg.1.txt:
...
349. Suggest:
With -P, set the specified publisher as the preferred
publisher.
The set of package versions offered by the preferred publisher
will be checked first when determining which publisher
repositories should be used for the initial retrieval of
package
content and metadata during package operations. For subsequent
updates, a package will always be obtained from the publisher
it
was installed from.
The subsequent updates part isn't quite right. If you install a
package from a publisher that is preferred at the time of install,
and then later change the preferred publisher, we will obtain
updates from the new preferred publisher instead of the publisher
the package was obtained from. Bugs 8613/8614 touch on this issue.
The behaviour will be changing in the future, but I thought it
better to document what the current behaviour is for now.
Would the following be more acceptable?
With -P, set the specified publisher as the preferred publisher. When
installing new packages, the preferred publisher will be checked first
when determining which package repositories should be used for the
retrieval of package content and metadata during package operations.
When updating existing packages, if a package was installed from a
publisher that was preferred at the time of install, then updates will
be obtained from the current preferred publisher. For packages that
were installed from a publisher that was not preferred at the time of
install, updates will always be obtained from the original publisher
regardless of the current, preferred publisher.
pkg.5.txt:
29. I would probably disagree that the publisher is a string; maybe
"a publisher's identifying name is...". I don't think we need
the DN examples here, either. But I believe we should have an
explicit sentence about being connected to the owner of the
domain in some fashion. That is, I shouldn't be publishing as
"whitehouse.gov".
The Java Language Specification has a nice sentence
You form a unique package name by first having (or
belonging to
an organization that has) an Internet domain name, such as
sun.com. Maybe
Your publisher name can be safely constructed from an
Internet
domain name you (or your organization) own, manage, or
represent. Other constructions may lead to collisions and be
unsafe for general use.
I hadn't considered that particular aspect, does the following work?
A publisher's identifying name is a forward or reverse domain name
that can be used to identify a person, group of persons, or an
organization as the source of one or more packages. A publisher name
should be constructed from an Internet domain name that is owned,
managed, or represented by or on behalf of a publisher. Other
constructions may lead to collisions and be unsafe for general use.
I'm going to assume these changes were reasonable if I hear no further
objections.
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
