Catching up on a few things...

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 05:02:21PM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:58:16PM -0800, David Powell wrote:
>>>> This is what pkg dependencies are for -- extend that to add versions and
>>>> to tell pkgadd that these have to be upgraded together.
>>>   Dependencies usually represent the functional needs of the software
>>>   delivered in them.  Using/relying on a dependency to indicate that
>>>   file F moved from package A to package B between revs 3.1 and 3.2
>>>   also seems semantically wrong (since there might not be an actual
>>>   functional dependency between the packages in either 3.1 or 3.2), not
>>>   to mention very difficult to maintain.
>> We'll need a way to deal with files moving from pkg to pkg if we'd use
>> pkg updating.  The details can be worked out, but, yes, it would be a
>> pain to manage that kind of metadata.  And that's a good point in favor
>> of pkgrm + pkgadd.
> 

I agree with Dave that using dependencies for this sort of thing feels 
wrong.  I also think that figuring out how to discover and maintain 
dependencies is probably hard enough without burdening it with this 
issue, too.

> Actually, there might be a better way to deal with file moves across
> pkgs: add a new prototype(4) "file type" that indicates that the given
> file has moved to a different pkg or has been deleted altogether.  This
> wouldn't tell the user what pkg it has moved to...
> 

Your suggested usage of prototype(4) might be a useful mechanism to 
replace the pkghistory stuff currently used, but I think you'd need to 
carry it through into the pkgmap to actually make it work as part of the 
package operations.

> Even better: ...but if we limit ourselves to moving files across pkgs at
> micro (update) or minor release boundaries then we can make sure that
> all related pkgs are available to the upgrade/install system and this
> issue goes away completely.
> 

Introducing such a limitation so long as we have the current Solaris 
release model seems pretty difficult, since we're overloading projects 
into patches via the updates.

Anyway, we'll be working on the specifics of how we do install and 
upgrade under Caiman over the next couple of weeks and I'll make sure we 
consider this issue.

Dave

Reply via email to