On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Bart Smaalders <[email protected]> wrote: > Deleting or disabling a publisher > causes it to be removed from the search order. Re-enabling a publisher > causes it to added at the end of the search order.
That doesn't seem right. I would expect disable/enable to retain the position in the search order - I see the disable as a transient operation and a disable/enable cycle would be a no-op. > Each selection of the publisher for a package is made independently > according to the algorithms above; there is no implicit inheritance > of publisher across dependencies of any type. I would expect that dependencies for a package from a given publisher would first be searched for from that publisher. Consider the following scenario: Package p1 from publisher X depends on package p2, currently only available from publisher X. A week later, the preferred publisher also releases package p2. (Publisher X may be completely unaware of this.) If I then install p1, it results in p2 being obtained from the preferred publisher, resulting in a different system. This sort of unpredictable behaviour over time drives sysadmins up the wall. I can image whether a publisher being sitcky for dependency resolution might be a configurable property; alternatively, packages themselves might declare their dependency resolution policy. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
