Hi George,
Please review my changes for 13451:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gvasick/13451/
The bug report is available here:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=13451
Mostly looks good.
I suggest moving the obsoleted package definitions to the end of the
file, which is similar to the way it's been done for other unbundled
packages. This should also make the webrev diffs easier to read
when you regenerate them.
The version numbers seem to be all over the place. Do you really
want "version 1" for "developer/gcc/gcc-libgcc" rather than say
"version 1.0.0" to be consistent with the others?
"version 0.0.0" for "developer/gcc/gcc-libssp" seemed weird.
Maybe "version 0.0.1"?
Do each of the SVR4 packages have decent NAME fields in the
SVR4 package pkginfo files? This would be used for the summary
for that package. If they don't, then you can add a specific summary
line to the IPS package definitions (like the one for the
"developer/gcc/gcc-dev-4" package).
It's possible to have multiple classification lines in a package.
For example, see:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/pkg/gate/src/util/distro-import/unbundleds/Studio
would this be useful here?
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
