[illumos-Developer] review: nuke staleness from svr4pkg

[Garrett D'Amore]

On Fri, 2010-10-15 at 12:37 +0200, Joerg Schilling 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 

Noted, but ultimately, you don't have veto power.  The changes in the
tools I've posted for review here are meant to be non-controversial
removal of stuff that will *never* work in illumos.

> > 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.

You can still do this.  You have to supply an i.none class action script
for them, which is what all recent versions of Solaris (since Solaris 9
at least) do.

What's removed is an older set of builtin hacks.

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

This isn't meant to be a private fork.

	- Garrett
> 
> Jörg
>