Michal Pryc wrote: > Brock Pytlik wrote: >> Adding pkg-discuss to the cc list. >> >> Ethan Quach wrote: >>> >>> >>> Michal Pryc wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> I would like to make sure that this will not be lost somewhere >>>> between other bugs, so I have small question regarding bug 3718: >>>> >>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3718 >>>> >>>> Are some changes on the libbe side necessary to fix this bug? >>>> >>> I would think so. libbe currently doesn't provide a public >>> interface to validate a BE name, which is what I'd presume >>> the pkg API would want to call into to do the work. >> That sounds like exactly what we would like to have. >>> >>> We can add one for the code going forward. But what about >>> older builds? Is this new feature in the pkgmanager getting >>> backpublished? >>> >> There are a few possible options. We could back publish with a >> dependency on libbe so that the new libbe would get pulled in when the >> SUNWipkg package is upgraded. Given the scope of SUNWinstall-libs >> dependencies, I'm not sure that would be the wisest choice. The second >> option would be to make sure that the code was able to deal with the >> library missing that function. I'm guessing that would mean making sure >> to catch the appropriate exception in the appropriate place and tell the >> user that choosing a BE name at this time isn't supported but will be >> after their next image-update. The third option would be to simply >> create a new boundary at whatever build this goes into, and don't >> backpublish back beyond that point. I don't think that's the ideal >> solution, but it's probably the easiest from our perspective. I'd >> imagine the choice of what we'll actually do will get made by >> Stephen/Danek/Bart/Dan (ie, the people who have experience with these >> kinds of decisions). My preference would be for the second option and my >> guess is that, assuming it's feasible, that's what we'll go with. > > Brock, > I really like the second option. From the solution point of view, we > could do: > > try: > import libbe > libbe.require("1.0") > except ImportError: > do the stuff with older version > > It's similar to what is in the pygtk: > http://faq.pygtk.org/index.py?req=show&file=faq02.006.htp >
Ethan, Evan, I couldn't find a bug enhancement against libbe for this. I assume there isn't any? Is there any chance to get estimates when this could be fixed in the libbe? I am trying to schedule the work for Package Manager to implement: http://xdesign.sfbay.sun.com/projects/solaris/subprojects/package_mngt/UI_specs/ui_spec_phase3/html-mockup/52_update_confirm_r4.htm Since the GUI is on top of the libbe---IPS api---IPS GUI, so it would be really great if at least you could tell me if this will be fixed for 2009.04 (the best would be to get this ready a little bit earlier then code freeze of 2009.04 to give me a chance to implement those bits and do the webrev(s)). -- best Michal Pryc http://blogs.sun.com/migi
