>>> Otherwise, the changes looks fine (along with solaris.py, I went >>> through a few dozen of the import files but no more!) From a testing >>> perspective, I assume you did a full import. Could you please verify >>> that every package manifest in the resulting repo includes the >>> classification field?
>> Will do. I've just checked in this huge change, and I'll now start a >> redist_import >> going, then write a python script to check each of the package manifests for >> this line. > I wrote a script to do this. See: > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/attachment.cgi?id=645 > > I ran this against a redist_import repository for build 100a > (viewable internally at http://stard.sfbay:24100) that I've > just created and got the following results: > Thanks. > I asked Alan (Coopersmith) about the FSW ones. His reply was: > > "Those were all packages from the initial preview builds we no > longer use. (Except FSWxorg-fonts, which is used up to build > 100, but is going away in build 101.) > > I don't think any categories are needed, since no one should be > installing them now - the dependencies were just to make sure > they got replaced by the right packages on upgrade." Yup, completely agree here. > The SUNWphp52 one was an oversight, and I've just added a classification > line for that one (changeset df86b51145ebc9716fa89765e8d5f52bcdb69d1e). Good. > There are no package files in the pkg source workspace to add a > "classification" line for: > > babel_install > entire > redistributable > slim_install > > Should they be classified? If so, where should that be done? I don't think so - they're implementation details in a sense and exposing them this way doesn't really matter (unless we want to create an "Implementation Detail" classification). dsc _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
