Hi Evan, Thanks for your response. I still have questions about item 3. See below.
Evan Layton wrote: > Karen Tung wrote: >> Hi Evan, >> >> - I checked bug 7838, it doesn't contain any detail of your >> implementation. >> I was hoping to understand more why you implemented things the way >> you do there. >> So, I guess I will ask my question here. :-) >> >> 1) Why add the "entire" package to the AI manifests, and why make it >> the first package? >> I think it is sufficient to get the version number from SUNWcsd or >> SUNWcs. I believe >> those are always there in any image or installation. > > The reason the entire package is used here is because SUNWcsd and > SUNWcs don't always change when there is an update however for any > change the entire package does change. In order to be able to > differentiate between these the entire package was the only thing I > could think of to use. OK, this makes sense. > >> >> 2) At this time, the version number for the "Install running on", and >> the "System installed with:" >> are printed at 2 separate locations in the log file. I think it is >> much better for people to find >> the information if they are printed one following the other. >> > > OK that's not difficult to do I can just move the first call to > log_bld_info to just before the second one. OK > >> 3) In log_bld_info(), you used temp file to capture the output of >> "pkg.....". I think it is much simpler >> to use "popen()" to execute the command and get the output and >> completely avoid the temp file. > > definitely not simpler... ;-) > > While this is a bit complicated I really don't want to have to figure > out the pid, do a popen(), attach the pipe, run system() and then grab > the output from the package command. I'd much rather leave it the way > it is... Actually, looking at the popen(3C) man page, or googling for popen gives many examples on how to use it. Why does it involve figuring out the pid, attaching the pipe and running system() in this case? > >> >> 4) The format of the output contains the name of the package you used >> for querying the >> output, should we parse the output to not include the name of the >> package? > > I left that there so that it's obvious what is being compared. This > way we know that this is the entire package that we're looking at and > don't have to attempt to figure out what we're actually comparing. > OK, this makes sense. Thanks, --Karen > Thanks, > -evan > >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Karen >> >> Evan Layton wrote: >>> I need two reviewers for: >>> >>> 7838 Log installer build number and installed software build number >>> in install_log >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=7838 >>> >>> and >>> >>> 6810 AI image missing D-Trace toolkit >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6810 >>> >>> Webrev: >>> >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/7838/ >>> >>> >>> I've tested this with both an AI and slim CD image and get the >>> proper output. >>> >>> In the log you'll see lines similar to: >>> <OM Apr 15 19:14:09> Install running on: >>> >>> FMRI: pkg:/entire at 0.5.11,5.11-0.111:20090331T092149Z >>> >>> and >>> >>> <OM Apr 15 19:40:42> System installed with: >>> >>> FMRI: pkg:/entire at 0.5.11,5.11-0.111:20090415T070733Z >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -evan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> >
