Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 05:08:42PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
The current IPS notion of publisher is unfortunately _local_. Manifest
signing will necessarily change that. But that's not enough to solve
the problems with the current publisher metaphor. The distinctions
between streams/repositories published by the same publisher needs to be
encoded in metadata, not in the repository URLs. But please see bug
#10213.
It's already encoded in metadata, look at
http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev/publisher/0 (with wget) for an example.
The client just doesn't leverage this metadata yet.
The fact that the notion of publisher that the UIs deal with is local
makes it difficult to use such metadata. The UIs themselves need to
change, not just client code.
The changing of the UI has always been implied. In fact, I've responded
multiple times to this list, and even posted about one or two of these
changes in a blog post [1].
The fact that users can specify their own publisher prefixes has also
been set to change for a long time (it's simply a matter of time and
resourcing).
My vision, if you'll allow me, is this:
- Publishers are defined by files installed by packages. Those files
At this time, I don't believe packages are the right solution; it
creates a nasty boot-strapping problem and doesn't bring much benefit.
include: the display name of the publisher (and localizations?), the
name of the publisher as it should appear in its certificates,
any trust anchors needed for manifest signature verification, and a
list of zero or more repository URLs serving the publisher's streams.
These should be delivered by special purpose actions. See next item.
I think are needs are a lot simpler than that, and I believe it
sufficient to use the metadata structure we've already defined for .p5i
files (with some minor modifications/additions).
The action path is not one I'm interested in pursuing.
- Users don't define publishers.
This has been intended for a long time now as mentioned multiple times
previously on this list and other places.
Yes, there's no central document for this, sorry. But there's really
nothing different here you're proposing except delivery by packages,
which currently seems like overkill to me (as well as problematic).
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
[1] http://blogs.sun.com/srw/entry/what_s_in_a_name
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
