On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:48:37PM -0700, Bart Smaalders wrote: > On 06/22/10 14:40, Danek Duvall wrote: > >As part of my work to get the pkg(5) gate generating IPS packages natively, > >I needed some sort of protocmp. The ON validate_pkg tool does more than we > >need, and you can't turn those bits off, so you end up with unquenchable > >warnings about paths not being right (we move some stuff around in the > >packages), modes not being just so, etc. ON's more dictatorial about how > >things get installed in the proto area, while we're following a more > >natural userland model, where we do a bunch of pkgmogrify fixups. > > > >But we package a couple of hardlinks, and the current directory bundle code > >treats hardlinks in arbitrary order. This wad allows us to specify which > >pathnames should be treated as files, leaving all the other names for the > >inode to be hardlinks, rather than simply taking as a file the first one > >the filesystem gives us. > > > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dduvall/pkg-gentargets/ > > So, does one name the file w/ --target or the link? The man page isn't > clear (at least to me). > > Wouldn't this be simpler if we took the target files and looked up the > inodes before generating any actions? You'd need to add a method to > the DirectoryBundle to indicate this, or a optional parameter to the > constructor....
I'm unusually slow today; forgive me if this is a stupid question. I wondered if it was safe to assert that the link count didn't change. I was having a hard time telling if this was all based upon one pass, or if it looked at the filesystem more than once. In some cases, it seems entirely possible that a file could get unlinked. Should it really traceback when this condition is encountered? -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list pkg-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
