On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 05:33:46PM -0400, Jonathan Edwards wrote: > On Aug 25, 2009, at 4:36 PM, johan...@sun.com wrote: > >> The system has to be servicable in addition to being manageable. >> After reading the posts in this discussion, nobody in favor or >> no-deps or force has been able to articulate why this would be >> necessary if dependencies are kept correctly in package metadata. > > it's this exact assumption that's being challenged, and i think the > response essentially boils down to "not our problem - the package > creators need to 'correctly' structure and define their dependencies" - > (whatever this means) .. or "file a bug if a package dependency is > 'broken'" - (for whatever we take the term broken to mean)
You're challenging the assumption that the system has to be servicable? > the only problem i am trying to highlight is that there is little > recourse for action for the administrator who may have more knowledge of > the proper package dependencies than the package creator The administrator can request support from Sun, work with the community to fix the problem, or roll their own package that has the dependencies specifed in the way they find to be correct. That sounds like recourse to me. >> There's nothing stopping administrators from taking our packages >> using pkgrecv(1), modifying the contents to remove the dependencies >> that they don't want, and then sending the package to their own >> custom repository. Just don't call us asking for support when >> things break. > > ok .. agreed - but supportability should realistically revolve around > certain core component variation in a system - and i would argue that > the core component structure we submit as "supportable" is still a > relatively large bundle. We're still refactoring our package boundaries. This project is in development -- as in not yet finished. The state of the project today isn't going to be the state of the project when it's completed. Renaming packages and building more sensible boundaries is going to be part of this project. We just haven't gotten to that stage yet. > we're all after the same goal .. i just don't think that limiting choice > is the proper way to get there, particularly for people who may want to > use some of the tools and packages, but not all of them that we deem to > be the only properly supported ones. We're giving you a different set of tools to accomplish these tasks. My colleagues and I have explained how you can use the tools to accomplish the unsupported operations that you have in mind. However, if you break your system doing things that aren't supported, you get to keep both pieces. -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
