On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 09:22:40AM -0700, Liane Praza wrote: > James Carlson wrote: > > It's unclear to me which of these two things (package and service > > names) is really intended to be the primary administrative unit. > > As long as there are packages without services (i.e. forever), packages > will remain as a primary administrative unit. So, I think we'd be > discussing additional features in the packaging system rather than a > fundamental change in primary administrative unit.
True, but in the context of packages with services the admin might think of the FMRI as the primary admin unit. > I don't currently think that having the svc* commands grow IPS knowledge > would be the right architecture either. (Though am not suggesting > that's what you were proposing.) I don't think svc* need know anything about packaging, but a convention where packaging places the name of the package that delivered a given service in a property of that service could be very useful (and even packaging system agnostic). > > The text above seems to be written as though the package name is that > > unit: we'd want to ask "what service is (or services are) damaged if > > this package is removed?" > > > > Wouldn't it be somewhat more consistent to deal just in FMRIs, since > > that's how the rest of the system is managed? That is, I'd like to be > > able to say "please remove svc:/network/foobar and whatever horse it > > rode in on," rather than trying to divine sets of package names by > > looking at services. Better still, I'd like to install by service > > name. "What horse did svc:/network/foobar ride on?" followed by "Remove that horse" is a close enough approximation. > It might be a nice feature, and something to take up with the new > packaging system. It seems best discussed there as I'd quickly ask why > [...] I agree. Nico --
