Rich Burridge wrote:
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.
OK.
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"?
I took the versions directly from the GCC shared libraries:
libgcc_s.so.1
libgfortran.so.3.0.0
libgomp.so.1.0.0
libobjc.so.2.0.0
libobjc_gc.so.2.0.0
libssp.so.0.0.0
libstdc++.so.6.0.10
I was planning to track the actual GCC versions for these packages.
Alternatively, I could combine all of these libraries into a single
package, something like developer/gcc/gcc-runtime-4 with a version
number of 4.3.3. This may be simpler for users you just need the
libraries to run already compiler applications.
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).
I'll clean this up.
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?
Yes, I think this makes sense. Thanks for the pointer.
Thanks.
Thanks,
George
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
