I've updated the webrev with something that I think reflects the
comments that you've made.  Let me know how this looks:

http://cr.opensolaris.org/~johansen/webrev-6339/

Thanks,

-j

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 05:10:31PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 04:48:44PM -0800, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > Thanks for all of the reviews, but I jumped the gun.  The first fix
> > didn't pass the test suite.  I've re-whacked this so it works correctly.
> > The new fix is equally concise, but actually passes the test suite.
> > I updated the webrev in place this time, since the whole thing is so
> > small.
> 
> So from what I can tell, the problem was that you weren't regenerating the
> catalog cache with the removed catalog.  That seems to be happening in the
> rewrite, but I don't think you're doing it in a terribly clear way.
> 
> You're relying on the behavior of cache_catalogs() to ignore a missing
> catalog, and, like Shawn said, you're relying on origin_changed being True,
> which makes no sense.  It's like you're shoehorning multiple meanings into
> the variable just to make the code more compact.
> 
> I think it would be less confusing if you went back to your original
> change, and had a separate check for disabled down either between line 753
> and 754 (putting newauth into the auths dict and the save_config() call),
> or after the latter, re-caching the catalog there.
> 
> Danek
> _______________________________________________
> pkg-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss

Reply via email to