On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [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.
I have posted an updated webrev that adds CherryPy to the install and package build process: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swalker/pkg-depot-3/ I have also corrected modules/server/__init__.py to include the repository module. No other changes were made. 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
