On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 02:56:41PM -0800, lianep at eng.sun.com wrote: > > This strikes me as an issue that goes well beyond SMF. > > Yes and no. :)
Well, OK :) > We need to agree on a sensible default regardless of new interfaces > available. Unfortunately, I think that sensible default is > preservation of user customization across pkgrm/pkgadd; as you > mentioned, full use of the upgrade ability of packaging isn't > widespread. Also, preservation of customization is similar to what > folks have come to expect from other packages which deliver editable or > preserved files. > > If we agree on that as a sensible default, we're free to offer an > SMF-specific interface to revert to the delivered configuration. > (It'd be generic across all services.) That interface might svccfg delete... Re-install w/o preserving customizations: - pkgrm + svccfg delete ... + pkgadd OR - pkgrm + pkgadd + svccfg delete + svccfg import Update: - pkgrm + pkgadd > I'd like to complete the statement of requirements, so that we can > evaluate the combination of proposals that are coming down the pipe > against how they satisfy these requirements. Thus, I'm trying really > hard to avoid suggesting solutions along with the requirements. :) > (It took me a while to cut all the proposed solutions that slipped in > along the way out of my original mail.) Understood. I thought that a detour through the vaguaries of the pkg system might help clarify the issue that was brought up. As I see it there was no contradiction in what you had written, it was just that one has to understand the pkg update PITA in order to see it. Nico --
