[indiana-discuss] "no scripting zone" and isaexec(3C) == architectural

[Brock Pytlik]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 04:37:51PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
>   
>> a b wrote:
>>     
>> [snip]
>
>   
>> I won't debate the merits, etc. of this with your nor comment on what 
>> should or should not be done architecturally as that isn't my 
>> responsibility.  I'll just simply say that I see no issue with packaging 
>> for /usr as most packages are moving towards, and that I believe most 
>> users will expect that.
>>     
>
> I want to say the same thing, but for now I can't quite agree.  The
> namespace issues are important.  At the very least IPS needs to deal
> sanely with:
>
>  - two or more pkgs in one repository with actions
>   
I assume you mean actions which overlap? This may or may not be an 
issue, depending on what packages a user wants to install. It would be 
nice if we could (optionally) catch this at publication time and that's 
something we may work towards in the future. Of course, this doesn't 
solve the problem of third party software delivering conflicting 
actions, but at least we could be self-consistent.
>  - a user trying to install one or more pkgs whose actions would
>    conflict with those a pkg that's already installed
>   
Known bug: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3822
One thing that's holding this up is that there are issues with the 
current nevada pacakges delivering conflicts (see the dependent bugs of 
that bug). Until we deliver a self-consistent set of packages, IPS is 
somewhat constrained on what we can do.

Brock
> Additionally we could use a namespace registry (preferably one that
> could be used by Linux distros too).  Even then we'd need rules as to
> whether new conflicts can be created, and conflict resolution.  E.g.,
> what happens if a project wants to deliver /bin/foo directly with
> OpenSolaris, via a consolidation, and a third-party has already
> registered that name?
>
> Nico
>