Danek Duvall <danek.duvall at Sun.COM> writes: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:09AM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > >> METADATA >> >> Just a nit, but it seems that Norm Jacobs is the only one following >> this "new" format you're using. Everyone else has this: >> >> Owner: Joe User <email at domain.org> >> License: MUMBLEFROTZ >> >> Notes on the porting job (or lack thereof) here. >> >> ... and the gate readme seems to singularly unhelpful in guidance. >> Is there any rhyme or reason to what we're doing here? Or are these >> files just for fun? ;-} > > There's no real guidance for it. I've been forgetting to do them myself, > and so I grabbed one from a component I knew had one. > >> 5: I think this should say "GPLv2," not just "GPL." (Assuming >> that's the license in use. I don't really care, but apparently >> legal is in a tizzy about the license versioning.) > > Fixed. > >> pkginfo.tmpl >> >> 40: (nit, and I understand why you wouldn't want to change it) I >> wish we didn't put the version number into both the title and >> the package version. This is handled haphazardly in SFW -- some >> packages have DESC="... version" and others do not. It's a bit >> of a mess. > > Where is the version number in the package version? It should only be in > the description. > > I've been putting the component version number in when I think of it > because it's useful to know, and otherwise there's no place to put it in > the package metadata. The downside is that the metadata can't be patched. > Which isn't really a problem here. > >> Makefile and prototype_com: >> >> Doesn't usr/demo/mercurial/hgwebdir.fcgi need to be executable in >> order to be useful? > > Yes, but I'm shipping it just as it is in the mercurial distro. It would > have to be moved out of /usr/demo, anyway. > >> Files that seem to be missing from prototype_com: >> >> usr/lib/python2.4/vendor-packages/hgext/color.py >> usr/lib/python2.4/vendor-packages/hgext/color.pyc > > D'Oh! Thanks. > >> Other than that, I assume you've built this, created new packages, and >> installed them locally for a test. > > I've done a local build of just mercurial, run the built-in test suite, > and have started using it on my development box. I still need to do a full > sfw build (which would have caught that I didn't remove the "old" directory > from Targetdirs). > > I still need to work in the patch that Rich built up to fix 1052. I'll > send out another code review when I have that figured out.
That patch is the result of transplanting the patches of mpm's surrounding that issue into a workspace (the hg-nevada you'll see in the diff), and diff'ing across there. It could perhaps be more carefully crafted(?), but I was more concerned about missing necessary pieces. (it also gives 'hg version' something other than '1.0', since at that point it isn't) -- Rich
