Shawn Walker wrote:
So, other distributions use repository separation to define streams from what I recall. For example, Ubuntu puts each release in its own separate package repository.
They have separate URIs.
But that doesn't really work so well with our 'dev' and 'release' trains.
For example, if streams and repositories are synonymous, then for a user to switch between the 'release' and 'dev' they could only have one of those repositories enabled.
I'm not sure that is a great example based on what dev is today, but when we get to each OpenSolaris consolidation (and hopefully not much longer afterwards OpenSolaris.org hosted projects) publishing their own "sets of packages" it makes sense.
> But ideally, we want users (barring package
constraints) to be able to mix and match packages from those two separate repositories. A great example of this would be unbundled packages that currently exist in the 'dev' and 'release' repositories that aren't really part of the 'dev' and 'release' software train.
I'd say unbundled things that are in 'dev' and 'release' is more likely a "bug". Maybe they should really be in /unbundled (or pick a better word).
Another problem with relying on repository for software train identity (long-term) is what happens to that identity when a user gets an on-disk copy of it. In other words, if the user uses pkgrecv to get a copy of the sunstudio package from the /dev repository, and then a driver from the /support repository, to sneaker-net that over to another system, how do I know which software train those packages are for unless they've been tagged? Hence, streams.
That is good examples, thanks. I understand the need for the distinction. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
