Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 03/18/10 04:27 PM, Danek Duvall wrote:
> >The up-to-date check isn't up-to-date with the new package names, and this
> >makes it so:
> >
> > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dduvall/pkg-uptodate/
> >
> >It also adds a test case. It doesn't make the GUI use this check, because
> >the GUI got its checking fixed earlier in the fix to bug 13994.
>
> src/client.py:
> line 945, 946: change to use %(operation)s ?
How about:
--- a/src/client.py
+++ b/src/client.py
@@ -942,9 +942,9 @@ def __api_plan_exception(op, noexecute):
if e_type == api_errors.IpkgOutOfDateException:
msg(_("""\
WARNING: pkg(5) appears to be out of date, and should be updated before
-running %s. Please update pkg(5) using 'pfexec pkg install
-pkg:/package/pkg' and then retry the %s."""
- ) % (op, op))
+running %(op)s. Please update pkg(5) using 'pfexec pkg install
+pkg:/package/pkg' and then retry the %(op)s."""
+ ) % locals())
return False
if e_type == api_errors.NonLeafPackageException:
error(_("""\
> src/modules/client/image.py:
> This change does mean that you'll have to use -f to image-update an
> older client with newer pkg bits that doesn't use package/pkg, but
> that seems like a moot concern (only for devs or enterprising users).
Yup. If that proves to be an issue, we can check to see which one we
should be upgrading, but that's something that can come after the release.
Thanks,
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
