Thanks Joanie and Shawn - so we will leave this for now as is. Hopefully
the performance issue will improve in the future. I will check on the
focus issue before submitting.
Shawn the reason we are doing the disable -> enable -> disable sequence
is that the user has disabled the Publisher for a reason, but we still
want them to be able to install packages from the Publisher and leave
the system in the same state before they started the p5i install.
This covers the use case of someone periodically installing a package
from a Publisher they use infrequently and have no desire to see in PM
listings or in search results.
JR
Joanmarie Diggs wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 15:04 -0600, Shawn Walker wrote:
John Rice wrote:
Good question Joanie, I think this is required to trigger the catalog
updates. We are just operating on a Publisher object when we set it to
disabled, for the update to take effect I believe you need to trigger
the update, but Shawn would know best.
Yes, you need the update for the image to correctly reflect what
packages are available.
Well.... Then, at least hypothetically, couldn't pkg do a mini-update
rather than a full update, given that:
* an update was just done moments prior, and thus the image presumably
correctly reflects what packages are available
* the only thing which has changed since that update is the installation
of a finite set of known packages
* the publisher in question is being re-disabled
* the user cannot interact with that publisher until it becomes
re-enabled (right?), at which point a full update will occur
Anyhoo.... :-)
Regardless of the above, this new functionality is cool. As it is.
Thanks again John.
--joanie
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
