[Apologies for breaking threading, I had to fake this reply since Stephen's email got dropped and I had to dig the response out of the mail list archives at mail.opensolaris.org]
On Tue, May 13, 10:00:59 PDT 2008, Stephen Hahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Personally, I like the fact that all of the software is in one package >> so we are guaranteed to get all of the components. >> >> However, I'd be curious as to what others think about this. >> >> So, in regards to the "client" having SUNWipkg installed, yes, this >> does create a dependency on cherrypy and I should probably update the >> SUNWipkg package definition to note that. >> >> I'm also not certain how to handle the cherrypy package. Should I > > create a definition in the pkg repository as part of this commit? > > For now, and because CherryPy seems to be active, it would be best if > the build process built and installed CherryPy in the proto area. I > think two packages (ipkg, cherrypy) is most realistic, but would > settle for one (ipkg). > > Since we're going to be receiving PackageManager in our gate, getting > CherryPy in will serve as a useful example. I will update my webrev and try the two package route then tonight; and see if I can get it installing into the proto area. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker "To err is human -- and to blame it on a computer is even more so." - Robert Orben _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
