On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 08:42:25AM +0000, Gary Pennington wrote: > > - looking at this code i'm concerned that it will only work if the gz is > > running the latest bits from the repo. specifically, if "entire" is > > not installed in the gz, then you install SUNWcsd/SUNWcs but you don't > > put any version constraints on those packages. so imagine if you had a > > system running snv_128, then you remove "entire" and add the on-ips > > publishers. then you try to install a zone. then what syncs > > SUNWcsd/SUNWcs with the global zone? > > > > or another example. if a system is already running on-ips nightly > > bits. then the on-ips nightly repo is updated with new bits. then if > > you try to install a zone, you'll happily install bits that aren't > > in sync with the global zone, right? > > > > it seems to me that when installing zones you need to add explicit > > version syncs (which include timestamp granularity) for the following > > packages: > > > > SUNWcsd/SUNWcs > > SUNWips > > > > if you do that, then since those packages depend on their > > incorporations you'll also sync the ON and IPS gate incorporations. > > > > doing this won't sync every ON/IPS package at a timestamp granularity > > (which is ultimately what we need), but it wouldn't be worse that what > > we have today. > > > > These questions are (I think) answered by the changes that went into b130 > to address suggestion 1 from comment 0 in 12738. > > Specifically, I am relying on the fact that now all packages delivered by > a consolidation have a dependency on the consolidation incorporation (to > paraphrase the comment I reference). > > However, I'm really relying on the feeback that I have from Liane on the > success of her testing of these changes with the new on ips code that she's > working on. > > Perhaps Liane could provide some more detail to this answer? >
the fact that you're unable to explain to me why this is not a problem confirms in my mind that it is indeed a problem. i see that you updated the bug with a description of this issue, but if you putback this fix without addressing this issue, then another bug will have to be opened to track this issue. given that: - we're trying to get this into b132 - putting this back as is doesn't make things any worse than they are today - putting this bask as is lets us work with on-ips in the common case i guess i'm ok with this issue being addressed as a follow on bug. ed _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
