On 03/25/10 10:04 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 03/25/10 10:46 AM, Liane Praza wrote:
On 03/25/10 08:11 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 03/25/10 09:16 AM, Liane Praza wrote:
I'm really embarrassed. Please review the fix for:
15356 fix for 15346 breaks just_these_pkgs
at:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~lianep/pkg-re/
The fix is as minimal as possible, since I'm worried about introducing
other breakage. Testing looks good so far, though.
So I don't understand the comment about the list being pruned
previously.
I almost thought the block was redundant last night when I looked at
this, but then I noticed that while the pkgdict gets pruned initially,
afterwards, dependencies can be added back to pkgdict again which might
cause the need for it to be pruned again.
That's the part I went back and forth on being confused about. If you're
right, if I pick two packages with a dependency, and add them both
not_these_pkgs, the dependent one will get published regardless.
So I tried this with:
system/library/c++/sunpro archiver/unrar
and it didn't, despite the fact that unrar has a dependency on
c++/sunpro.
I fully admit that I might be very confused about this, but I don't see
where dependencies cause new additions between the two removal calls.
Hm, unless if you're talking about the incorporation dependencies?
Sorry, the "obsolete or renamed" logic found on lines 1416-1446 if
you're using the -A option was what I was thinking of.
To close the loop, Shawn and I chatted and agree that these aren't an
issue and nothing's added back to pkgdict by that code.
I'm pushing these changes.
liane
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
