"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <[email protected]> writes: > 2015-04-19 7:57 GMT-07:00 Peter FELECAN <[email protected]>: >> For the first part of your question: >> >> # pkgchk -l -p /opt/csw/bin/isaexec >> CSWisaexec > > I found the corresponding part from the postinstall script: > > installf $PKGINST /opt/csw/bin/isaexec f > > This is how pkgchk knows which package provides /opt/csw/bin/isaexec. > > Some possibilities are: > > 1. Try to track down what postinstall does (but how?) > 2. Modify CSWisaexec to provide a fake pkgmap entry (how?) > 3. Distribute our own isaexec binary, compiled from external source (Illumos?) > 4. Write our own isaexec
the fourth possibility seems to me the most adequate; by the way, it's not rocket science; however, having a look to SUN's c/o Illumos implementation is worthy as much more cmplete (hah, Alan is here again but not in the correct sense, consequently is just a bot) than what we have today. >> As for the second part, you take the risk to fail Turing's test ;-) >> But why not, indeed? >> >> Anyway, the warning annoys me because there is too much noise already. >> It warns me about what? > > It goes like this: > > 1. your package contains a hardlink to a file, and will likely not > work without it > 2. it makes sense to check which package provides this file > 3. we look at pkgmap of all packages to find the right one yes, I agree > The warning is generic, it warns you that your package depends on a > file, but we don't know what to suggest to fulfill that dependency. > Normally you find out what package that is and you suggest adding it > as a dependency. But what if you cannot find that package? You display > a warning. also agreed; however, this warning can be silenced when the CSWisaexec will have a map; by the way, I've seen that you just acted in that direction. -- Peter
