On Tue 30 Sep 2008 at 10:50AM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
> >
>
> Rather than doing per-build copies of this file, might not a better
> approach be to extract the current policy.conf from the svr4 pkg and
> then apply your changes as a patch?
Bart-- I looked at this some more. We currently handle power.conf and
other files using nawk, rather than patch(1) or gpatch(1). For some
files, nawk is fine, but when making multi-line changes it seems to
me that patching would be a lot more palatable.
I'd like to hold off on this for now, and rework this Makefile to apply
a series of patches for some of the files we change-- this will have the
advantage of allowing us to plug in new patches more easily, and should
let us detect problems more easily when patches fail to apply.
That is to say, something like this:
(./patch_file_from_pkg.py $(WOS_PKGS)/SUNWcsr etc/pam.conf \
patches/pam.conf.patch ) > $@
To me looks more palatable and sustainable than:
(./get_file_from_pkg.py $(WOS_PKGS)/SUNWcsr etc/pam.conf; \
echo "gdm-autologin auth required pam_unix_cred.so.1"; \
echo "gdm-autologin auth sufficient pam_allow.so.1"; \
echo "gdm-autologin account sufficient pam_allow.so.1"; \
echo "gdm-autologin session sufficient pam_allow.so.1"; \
echo "gdm-autologin password sufficient pam_allow.so.1" \
) > $@
Thoughts?
Thanks,
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
