* Darren J Moffat <Darren.Moffat at sun.com> [2007-05-01 09:09]: > James Carlson wrote: > >Dermot McCluskey writes: > >>That's exactly what I started doing. But after over 100 lines of > >>awk, I realised there were lots of scenarios I still wasn't taking > >>care of in the install CAS, and I hadn't even started looking at > >>the remove script yet. So yes, it is reasonably complicated. > > > >I see. > > > >>I think SMF provides a much more suitable way to update > >>these files. Is there a general policy or desire to avoid > >>proliferation of SMF services? > > > >It's a bit icky. It's somewhat akin to self-modifying behavior, in > >that the installed software goes through some sort of lengthy > >"rebuild" after the first boot. > > Any reason to introduce yet another "next boot" thing when we already > have the postrun service to do exactly this kind of thing ?
I think it's better to have a specific service for each updateable resource. One of the points in favour of Dermot's approach is that it can deal with info files delivered by means other than system packages, and can be extended to incorporate other info directory sources. (Well, we think that works for info--we know it works for man.) - Stephen -- sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
