unzoo integration [PSARC/2008/183 FastTrack timeout 03/14/2008]

[James Carlson]

David.Comay at Sun.COM writes:
> > The sooner we can distinguish between something destined for the Sun Solaris 
> > Distribution versus something destined for the "common" repository (at least 
> > common to those distros using that repository) the better.
> 
> What happens if that future Sun Solaris distribution is created
> entirely from a subset of components from that "common" repository?
> Put another way, are you asking for a way to distinguish the "core" set
> of packages from the rest?

Being able to distinguish "system" from "dumping ground" would be
good.

In the context of a system, it's possible to talk about whether
something ought to be integrated and, if so, whether it ends up
creating any new dependencies or opening any architectural holes.  I'm
less sure that a mere repository (as opposed to an intentionally
designed and integrated system) has those same attributes.

For "zoo" and "unzoo," Garrett makes a good argument that it'd be
nearly pointless to add it -- it's an archive format that nobody will
run into in real life, it's the sort of long-since-obsolete detritus
that we sometimes try to remove (saf(1M), anyone?), and it serves only
to confuse.

But if we're just composing a repository, that argument goes out the
window.  There's no _obvious_ lower bar that I can see for
integration.  Even rootkits and spam tools probably have a place.

So, if that's what we're reviewing for, then I think we may need a new
set of rules.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677