Danek Duvall writes: > On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 09:10:09AM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > ... 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.
OK. I'm just ranting. > > 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? You're right; it's not. For some reason, I thought I saw it on the VERSION= lines ... but that just has the usual template. Never mind. > 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. Sure. It's just another rant about SFW -- some of the packages do this, and others do not. It looks like arbitrary design. > > 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. OK, true enough. > > 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. At least I had one good comment. ;-} > > 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. OK. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
