No dia 9 de Janeiro de 2011 23:11, Philip Brown <[email protected]> escreveu: > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> It's not fair to say that we don't need to. When libslp is not on the >> filesystem, we do need to, but it's too late. You can imagine a >> different solution in which you test that certain shared library is >> there before you install a package. But this needs a coordinated >> effort from both developers of installation utilities, and is not >> likely to be done in a near future. > > > errr... maybe I'm missing something here. But we already have a > "test"/safety check. it works with pkg-get, pkgutil, and even plain > old > pkgadd. > Declare a dependency on SUNWslpu. > > Its always been "allowed" to do so, so we dont have to change any of > our standards to do so. > And it fulfills your "check before install" issue. > > What's wrong with that?
In general, that we can't safely declare dependencies on SUNW packages. The same files are in different packages on different Solaris versions. For example, /usr/lib/sparcv9/libslp.so.1 is in SUNWslpx on Solaris 9 and in SUNWslpu on Solaris 10. In our particular case we could declare a dependency on SUNWslpu, because we don't have 64-bit cups libraries yet. When we compile 64-bit cups libraries, we won't be able to declare a dependency that would guarantee the presence of a 64-bit libslp. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
