Jonathan Mellors wrote: > Hi Thorsten, > > Looks good to me. And to me.
Thanks, Nick > > Thanks > Jonathan > > Thorsten Frueauf wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> after Lucias changes and some testing a bit more the following changes >> got necessary: >> >> - in order to identify the build version, it is not enough to strip off >> "snv_" but also the appended letter in case of a respin for that build >> >> - within the substitution for the OS package branch version some packages >> depend on, I forgot to prefix a 0. to the build number. >> >> - for some reason my script to determine dependencies did eliminate a >> "p" from >> the package name, that formed e.g. SUNWpool to SUNWool, which does not >> exist. >> Same for SUNWperl -> SUNWerl. >> >> - for the SUNWscmasau package the auto determination defined a >> dependency on >> itself - I though my script prevents that, but obviously that slipped >> through >> >> - to accomodate Lucias changes to switch to jdk6 and open-jdmk, include >> SUNWscmasar and SUNWscmasau in the list of packages to deliver and add >> them >> to ha-cluster-framework-cmass >> >> - SUNWscr did list twice the dir action for "etc/cluster/original" - the >> pkg >> command fails with a spectacular python stacktrace if that happens :) >> >> Please have a look at >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~frueauf/colorado-gate-ipsdefs-fixup/ >> >> Greets >> Thorsten >> >> Thorsten Frueauf wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> some time ago I send a webrev with a 1:1 conversion of SVR4 prototype >>> and pkginfo files into the IPS manifest world, along the design we >>> defined at http://www.genunix.org/wiki/index.php/ColoradoIPSBuild >>> >>> I did now refresh that webrev in order to contain some Makefile logic >>> to "build" the ipsdefs hierarchy and actually perform the pkgsend to a >>> configurable IPS repository URL. >>> >>> The changes also provide a start to consider package dependencies, >>> legacy and license actions. There is logic to deal with pkg versions, >>> also in the case for debug builds and developer only builds. I did >>> also introduce some group packages, similar to the "package cluster" >>> definitions we have within pkgdefs. >>> >>> I know this is a huge pile of files, but I would like to putback into >>> the colorado staging gate next week (say Tuesday COB MET), if there >>> are no major objections. There is follow-up work which is dependent on >>> this putback, like dealing with the various SVR4 package script and >>> refactoring the package content into a different structure (like we >>> can now comine the root and usr packages for sure). >>> >>> Of course this is not yet set in stone and has further ToDo items, >>> some of them I capture within the usr/src/ipsdefs/Makefile file as >>> comments. >>> >>> Please review: >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~frueauf/colorado-svr4-to-ips-autoconversion/ >>> >>> Greets >>> Thorsten >> > _______________________________________________ > ha-clusters-discuss mailing list > ha-clusters-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ha-clusters-discuss
