Fredrich Maney writes: > > I'd find that hard to advocate by itself. Managing multiple versions > > is something that the software packaging system ought to provide in a > > consistent way across the system, rather than just asking each > > software developer to roll his own private solution. > > I have not yet seen a packaging system that could handle multiple versions of > the same package being installed and in use at the same time while also > managing (correctly and sanely) dependencies, configuration files, logs, etc.
Still ... having each bit of software implementing its own mechanism to handle multiple versions virtually guarantees that the results will be uneven, incomplete, and hard to manage over time. I can see why you might want to do it in some special and limited cases, but as a general policy, it seems like a hard thing to "advocate." > I like being able to not only minimize my outages for an upgrade/rollback, but > also to be able to do things like have Apache 2.2.8 running for just > the external > facing sites/networks, while having Apache 1.3.3 running for just the internal > sites/networks on the same box, serving (at least some of) the same content > pages. That latter one sounds to me like a good application for a non-global zone. > > There are other important considerations besides the directory name, > > I think versioning is a much harder problem than just directory names > > and symlinks ... if it's done well. > > Understood and agreed. Hence the "complicated" comment. However a logical > directory structure makes things quite a bit more simple for a packaging > system > to handle. I'd just say it makes it "possible." There are many other bits that have to be worked out by hand. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
