Danek Duvall wrote: > Makefile > > - line 271, 278: shouldn't JUST_THESE_PKGS now be using -j? > ok...
> publish_ips > > - line 1: /usr/bin/ksh, please you bashing my shell again? > > - line 30: this seems *awfully* complicated to do what appears to be a > very simple thing. > simplified. > - but I'm a bit confused -- doesn't the normal import process slurp in > SUNWipkg, too? Or is this for the "back-published" versions? The latter; it intentionally publishes SUNWipkg w/o any dependencies for now. This makes it easy for people to publish new versions of IPS until we get better publication support. > > solaris.py > > - line 750: all "s in strings" are lowercase, anyway, so this is either > redundant or paranoid. yes. I typed in the strings carefully lower case; the actual ones are mixed case. > > - line 837: "args[0]" ought to be sufficient. > yup. > - line 903: debugging? > thanks. Getting the lexer to read additional files after EOF turned out to be harder than I expected... > ClusterTools > > - Why have the version in the package name? This is what they wanted... I anticipate discussing this again w/ them. > > NetBeans > > - what's with all the commented-out bits? Packages they said they were going to deliver, but aren't in the dock. More discussion needed. > > Studio > > - line 3: I'm not too psyched about putting dates in as version numbers. > If they ever want to switch back to something like 8.x, then they're > just screwed. This would be a good thing to put in a package attribute > as an upstream / marketing version number, but then I'm not sure what > the real version number ought to be. 12.x? > Yes; I anticipate all the version numbers changing before this get published for real. > Danek -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
