Paul Kraus wrote: > On 10/25/06, James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> wrote: > >> 1. Core Solaris software tends not to have a complete list of >> dependencies in the packaging database. Instead, testing relies >> on the supported metaclusters (reduced networking, core, user, >> developer, entire distribution). If you add or remove packages, >> you have to be very careful to get the dependencies right. > > This is a major annoyance I have had with Solaris for > years.The SysV package spec (which is what the Solaris Package is > based on I believe) as well as the Solaris Package spec include > dependencies, why aren't they all in place and correct ? Linux seems > to be able to get this right with RPMs. Also, the pkg* tools do not > provide a 'recursive' option to take advantage of the dependencies. > > Is this lack of complete dependencies in the packaging > intentional on Sun's part, or just many small oversights ? Are the > OpenSolaris packages any better ?
It is a result of the complexity of life. There is more than one cook in the kitchen. > Sorry if this sounds like a rant, but this is one of the very > few areas where I think the Linux community has done a better job than > Sun. > I'm not sure I agree with this, and it certainly does not jive with my Linux distro experience. Rather, I'd say that they have a different grainularity of packaging, but see the same problems. BTW, if you can solve this for both backwards and forwards compatibility with completeness for a population of tens of thousands of developers, then let's start working on world hunger. -- richard
