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

[UNIX admin]

> No, that is the issue.  Being outside the ARC
> process, guidance beyond
> what's in filesystem(5) (which comes from a product,
> Solaris, that's
> developed in the ARC process), is needed.

Agreed.

> 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?

And: what happens, when package A delivers for example /etc/ipf.conf, and package B wants to deliver entries into that file, such as additional firewall rules, or removal of firewall rules?

Now we have package A (let's call him "a base package"), and package B (let's call him "an overlay package"), which both claim /etc/opt/ipf.conf.

How would this be handled, assuming there are about 20,000 systems on which this manipulation must be performed, perhaps as part of an automated provisioning process?
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org