[csw-maintainers] Dependencies on SUNW packages (was: newpkgs libslp1, openslp_devel)

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 9 de Janeiro de 2011 16:26, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> escreveu:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Peter Bonivart's message of Sun Jan 09 09:28:58 -0500 2011:
>>
>>> +1
>>
>> +1 from me too.  If we can't reliably use the sun provided libraries
>> but can deliver our own, we should.
>
> Are you seriously looking to make this a policy?
> You know, "x11" is not "core/required" either.
> There are probably others. (not many, I admit, but still)

X11 stuff is different in that it's a desktop installation, which is
likely done using the complete package set.  Installing a Solaris
desktop starting from a core install would be annoying, I don't think
anybody does that.

I would like to be able to provide such a library if I see a reason
for it.  In the case of cups I do: it's reasonable to assume that cups
is installed on servers, and servers tend to be installed using the
core package set, with a couple cherry-picked additions (bash, for
instance).  The Solaris slp library might or might not be among the
added packages.  Notably, slp is not required by the stock Solaris
lpd, so if you had a running Solaris printserver and you install cups
on it, you'll hit that missing library.

> This goes against a "day 1" method of doing things: if a Solaris
> library/program is "available", and it is reasonably assumed to always
> be up to date "enough", in the future, then we use it.

It is reasonable enough, but at the same time, in the case of cups,
the failure mode is quite unpleasant, and the solution (you can call
it a workaround if you want) is quite simple.

> yes we duplicate some sun libraries and progs, but only the ones where
> sun just doesnt keep their libs/progs up to date enough.
>
> if sun's slp libs are unusably out of date, I have no problem with
> shipping our own. But shipping our own, when we dont *need* to, is a
> huge change in policy and attitude for opencsw.   I think it would
> merit a userbase poll.

It's not fair to say that we don't need to.  When libslp is not on the
filesystem, we do need to, but it's too late.  You can imagine a
different solution in which you test that certain shared library is
there before you install a package.  But this needs a coordinated
effort from both developers of installation utilities, and is not
likely to be done in a near future.  If it would be done, I'd happily
remove openslp and rely on stock libslp.  But until then, I don't want
our users to install cups only to find out that it fails because of a
missing shared library.  I call that scenario a result of low package
quality.