* James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> [2007-05-01 09:38]:
> Liane Praza writes:
> > > A little more clarification on that: if we could make it so that no
> > > package ever used a {pre,post}{install,remove} or class action script,
> > > and that all of them used transient SMF service, so that package
> > > installs became nothing more than cpio blasting bits, then I might get
> > > more interested.
> >
> > That's what I'd like to see as a strategy, though I've seen no complete
> > proposal yet. Lots of folks have been knocking about in support of a
> > similar idea. Tony's suggested an 'upgrade' method on this alias, which
> > may be one possible implementation of such an idea, though not the only one.
>
> It's an interesting idea, but someone has to figure out what it all
> means for the existing packaging ABI and for complicating features
> such as diskless.
>
> If it results in paring down the number of obscure features we
> support, though, that'd actually be a good side-effect.
I am trying to build up a complete proposal, but it's taking a
considerable amount of time. It still feels to me that a "resource
indexer" service pattern is a preferred practice, even without other
changes.
- Stephen
--
sch at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
