Jordan Brown (Sun) wrote: > Nicolas Williams wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:31:28PM -0700, Jordan Brown (Sun) wrote: >>> When my package delivers a manifest into /var/svc/manifest, it is >>> required to deliver directory entries for /var, /var/svc, and >>> /var/svc/manifest. I'm not sure what happens when you install my >>> package onto a system where one of those is a symlink. I think the >>> symlink gets removed and replaced by a directory, but I'm not sure. >> Required is a bit strong. We do it for SUNW pkgs, but a package without >> those directory entries will install just fine. > > I don't have time right now to do the experiment, but I believe pkgmk > will at least whine and quite possibly fail if you don't include them. > (I agree that you can install a package that doesn't include them.) > >> A pkg with those entries will install with manual (or admin(4)) >> intervention in a system where /var/svc/manifest is a symlink. > > ... and what fraction of 3rd party installers that are invoking pkgadd > will have set the admin variable to the right state? > >> But why not make it a lofs mount and be done? > > That would work. I'm not totally comfortable with it - can't say for > sure why; I'm just not used to using lofs to remap the file system - but > it would work.
I think it wouldn't work because it'd always need to be lofs'ed together during an alternate root package install. I suspect Steve has gotten the strong feedback from everyone on this one. I certainly continue to believe that existing, packaged, third-party manifests shouldn't have to change their packages to continue to deliver into /var/svc/manifest/*. Let's let Steve ponder and come up with a revised proposal on this point. I'm currently not convinced that the symlinks buy us enough to bother with the maintenance burden and potential confusion they might cause. (Not having them in either direction breaks no currently committed interfaces, with the possible exception of profiles, which can be handled differently.) liane
