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

[Ben Walton]

Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Sun Jan 09 11:26:37 -0500 2011:

> > +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?

No.  I'm voicing my support for the idea in this particular case.  Not
every word I type is 'setting policy.'  This is a discussion among
peers, isn't it?

> 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.

This makes perfect sense for core packages.  We have a _specific_
problem with availability in this case though.

I suggested a checkinstall script at one point, but you didn't care
for that solution.  I think that ultimately, depending on the SUNW
package is the nicest solution, but it's been shown that this is not a
stable choice for the long term as names can and have changed.

So, we need a reliable way of providing this dependency for the people
wanting to use cups on their boxes.  This method should be transparent
and provide fail fast error handling.

Depending on our own libslp package gives all of these benefits.  The
downside is that there are now two libslp's on the system.  Someone
please correct me if I'm wrong here, but the slp provided by SUNWslpu
is the Sun implementation of this protocol, correct?  The package
Maciej has provided is of OpenSLP.  This means that it's only
providing slp functionality, not the same library.  (There very well
might still be a naming if the parent paths are ignored...)

Interestingly, this issue has been around for a _long_ time now:
http://osdir.com/ml/solaris.blastwave.user/2004-09/msg00010.html

> if sun's slp libs are unusably out of date, I have no problem with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.

I don't think this is an issue that warrants polling the users.  We're
not talking about a drastic policy change here.

Lets get more constructive.  If you don't consider either checkinstall
scripts or SUNW dependencies (setting aside your reasons for both
right now) as good solutions here, what do you think is a good
solution?

In my opinion, making the admin dig up a package file from a
potentially inconvenient location (and only after they've found a
non-working cups) is worse than simply delivering the functionality
ourselves.

Thanks
-Ben
--
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer - CHASS
University of Toronto
C:416.407.5610 | W:416.978.4302