[illumos-Developer] review: nuke staleness from svr4pkg

[Albert Lee]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Joerg Schilling
<Joerg.Schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
>
>> As part of the first round of changes where I'm giving some luvin' to
>> the SVR4 packaging command suite.  The first step is to trim a bunch of
>> legacy that is not needed (stuff that should have been done *years
>> ago*).
>>
>> The webrev is here:
>>
>> http://mexico.purplecow.org/gdamore/webrev/presvr4/
>
> I strongly object _any_ change in these tools before we did discuss what we
> like to achieve and before we have an agreement
>

I believe that is the point of this review. Garrett has stated reasons
for these changes. You can state your reasons against them.

>
>> e) support for the special older WOS packages that used internal
>> knowledge to generate a class action script to do compressed file
>> delivery.  There has never been a public tool to generate such packages,
>> and since at least Solaris 9 the packages in the WOS haven't needed it
>> because they ship with a more modern class action script (e.g. one that
>> can do bzip or 7zip.)
>
> If you are talking about packages that miss a tree in "root" or "reloc" and
> that instead have "archive/none.*" and "i.none", this is what SchilliX will use
> in the future as this is the only way to use pkgadd -d http://dmomain/filename
> with having compression on the payload data and still allow pkgadd to look into
> the package.
>

The specific support removed is for packages with a cpio archive
instead of a directory as "root" or "reloc" and no class action script
specified for the package class. The logic that is removed would make
pkgadd (pkginstall actually) use /usr/sadm/install/scripts/i.CompCpio
as a fallback CAS for these classes.

> Please do not start your private fork...
>

This can hardly described as "private".

-Albert