Brock Pytlik wrote: > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bpytlik/ips-15843-v1/
As far as I can tell, you're resolving the dependencies implied by a file only in the proto area that the file is found in, which isn't the right thing to do. Dependencies can be resolved in any of the proto areas, which makes me think that proto_dir isn't per-action, but still needs to be passed around as its own object, only now it's a list. We shouldn't have two ways of specifying proto areas. I would start obsoleting (by undocumenting) the "proto_dir" argument to pkgdepend generate. It will take precedence over directories specified by -d, but we should start discouraging its use. Once ON has a chance to cut over to using only -d, then we can get rid of it. The usage message for pkgdepend should use the same syntax for describing the -d option as the man page does. What's up with process_hardlink_deps() passing "" as proto_dir to HardlinkDependency? Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
