Will Young wrote: > 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?
Agree. Though we may need some hook to apply profiles that make changes to the system. > 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. Third party service with manifest in /var is added after the upgrade. A symlink won't exist for such service. 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. People may still expect to see things under /var/svc.
