No dia 21 de Dezembro de 2010 17:16, Ben Walton <[email protected]> escreveu: > Excerpts from Philip Brown's message of Tue Dec 21 12:12:08 -0500 2010: > >> first of all, I'm curious what you meant by "list". were you >> speaking webpage, or actual depend file? > > Pretty sure we're all meaning depend file here. > >> secondly... if we have a dependancy on a semi-'rare' sun >> package... we can and SHOULD put in SUNW packages as a dependancy. >> We dont usually bother having SUNWxxx in depend, because they are >> probably installed anyway. > > I think this makes sense. It would be better to fail at install time > and have the admin add the semi-'rare' package than mysteriously fail > at runtime. The runtime failure may not always have a readily > apparent reason, but the install-time failure will make it crystal > clear.
Based on this, here are ideas for check updates: - binary depends on a shared library provided by a SUNW package => suggest depending on that package - the needed shared library is in a different package on Solaris 9 than it is on Solaris 10 => suggest building separate packages for 9 and 10. We should also test packages against Solaris 9 and Solaris 10 catalogs. This is currently to be done on GAR side, as checkpkg now supports a flag to specify against which OS release we want to check. I agree with Ben that install-time failure is much more useful that runtime failure. Do our utilities fail when they encounter an unmet SUNW dependency? Maciej _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
