[csw-maintainers] the future of pkg-get...

Dagobert Michelsen dam at opencsw.org
Mon Sep 5 22:00:01 CEST 2011

Hi Ben,

Am 05.09.2011 um 19:13 schrieb Ben Walton:
> We noticed the following tweet in the irc ceeswi feed today and it
> started a discussion about what to do with pkg-get:
> --snip--
> opencsw at twitter: Solaris joys. I'd forgotten than OpenCSW can screw
> itself in the middle of an upgrade by removing wget/ssl.  Guess how I
> was reminded :(
> --snip--
> As this is a problem that would affect pkg-get, but not pkgutil due to
> the operations ordering, we started discussing options.  Some of the
> options are:
> 1. Provide a new pkg_get package that bails with a 'Please install
>   pkgutil' message unless the arguments are '-i pkgutil'
> 2. Provide a new pkg_get package that bails in every case with a
>   'Please install pkgutil' message.

And that it is deprecated.

> 3. Have pkgutil provide pkg_get_stub/CSWpkgget thus obsoleting pkg_get
>   in favour of pkgutil.
> 4. Leave it as is.
> My preference would be either 1 or 2 as I think that people hitting
> issues like those in the tweet do more harm than good to OpenCSW's
> reputation.  Both of these options could be implemented with a wrapper
> around pkg-get.real to allow a determined site to continue using
> pkg-get if they want.
> The third option, while superficially attractive, would leave people
> without anything responding to pkg-get and shouldn't be considered
> seriously in my opinion.  (I guess CSWpkgutil could provide a
> replacement for pkg-get...implementing option 1 or 2, but I still
> don't think this is the best path.)

pkg_get_stub could provide a message of the type "2".

> The fourth option is status quo and harmful to users in the long run,
> in my opinion.
> What do you folks think?  Are there other better options?

I would go with a combination of 2 and 3.

Best regards

  -- Dago

"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896

More information about the maintainers mailing list