Rich Burridge wrote: > Danek Duvall wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 02:15:04PM -0800, Rich Burridge wrote: >> >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richb/pkg-5115-v1/ >> >> Why a version of "11.11" for AVS? That seems a bit archaic. If >> there's no good >> reason for it, or for its own independent versioning, then just use >> the >> default versioning that solaris.py provides. > > I did this to match the version number in the SUNWCavs cluster > definition in > comment #7 of the bug: > > http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5115#c7 > > > Adding Jim to the cc: for the definitive answer on why the version > number is 11.11.0 for that cluster...
This is a carry over from when AVS was built out of the NWS Consolidation, where that build environment generated a value called OS_VER, and then used this value for OS specific makefile processing. During AVS's move from the NWS Consolidation to the ON Consolidation at snv_101, the individual doing the work did not know what to replace OS_VER with, so as a means to mitigate risk, the old NWS value of 11.11 was used in its place. If there is a viable reason to change this value to something else, please submit a CR. >> >> Also, could you give the bug a decent synopsis? "Package manager >> dependencies" suggests there's a bug in the GUI, and dependencies >> aren't >> ordered, etc. I see that the synopsis has been changed. Does this mean that all other SRV4 packages that may not have programatically convert into IPS packages with a correct dependency list, have now been identified, and resolved too? >> Done. When there is a set of IPS packages for AVS with corrected dependencies, I would be willing to test them for correct behavior. > > Thanks. > > Jim Dunham Engineering Manager Sun Microsystems, Inc. Storage Platform Software Group _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
