Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Jordan Brown (Sun) <opensolaris at jordan.maileater.net> [2008-04-07 19:47]:
>
>> Steve Peng wrote:
>>
>>> I am proposing that we deliver /var/svc/manifest tree as
>>> it is now which
>>> allows 3rd parties to deliver their manifests into /var and have the 2nd
>>> step of import
>>> create link for each manifest under /etc to address the backward
>>> compatibility concern.
>>>
>> Who will delete these symlinks when the 3rd party service is removed?
>>
>
> Good question. Why would a forest of symlinks be better than a single
> directory symlink (/var/svc/manifest -> /etc/svc/manifest) or a layer
> just under that?
>
This seems like the logical solution to me. If the upgrade moves
the current manifest directory and replaces it with a symlink then I
don't see what the original "concerns and proposal" section was claiming
would break. I also didn't follow how links to original /var locations
in /etc were supposed to fix anything if the goal was to allow system
actions with manifests before /var was available.
-Will
> - Stephen
>
>
