Alan Coopersmith wrote: > On 11/21/11 10:55, Rich Burridge wrote: > >Or maybe even close as Will Not Fix if the system is unlikely to work > >without the > >system/linker package on it? > > Admittedly the bug started before Ali's linker package refactoring, > when the default install didn't include all those files, because they > were in the lint-library package instead of the linker package, so it > was causing actual > problems, which should no longer be present. > > https://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=18575 was the original > report > before the move to bugster.
I guess the question is whether these particular files could ever be safely placed in a package that was allowed to be minimized off the system. I don't know why that wouldn't be the case, and so my suggestion would be to have direct and explicit dependencies on them, should they ever move. That said, it seems a bit unlikely that they would move, and if they do, the final dependency on system/linker wouldn't prevent you from removing their new package -- you'd need for gcc to incorporate system/linker at a version that would never allow the files to be removed. While I think that's a fine idea, I think we're a bit early in history for that to solve more problems than it might cause. On the other hand, the file-level dependencies in the manifest help us understand what the underlying dependencies actually are, and that's useful for the maintainers. Danek _______________________________________________ userland-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/userland-discuss
