[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
On 01/20/10 08:10 AM, Eric J. Ray wrote: > They should go on awaiting-sponsor, please. Ok - will do. Thanks. Bonnie > > On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > >> So where did we land on this? >> >> Are we putting them back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list or do they need to >> be moved to the 'closed' list (because they aren't going to get fixed)? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Bonnie >> >> On 01/15/10 03:39 PM, Willi Burmeister wrote: >>> Hi Ethan, These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because the sponsor is no longer with Sun. 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package names >>> Moriah Waterland got patches from me for all these bugids. So if the >>> software will >>> be available in the future I think it would be a good idea to fix these >>> bugs. >>> Willi >>> ___ >>> request-sponsor mailing list >>> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org >> ___ >> request-sponsor mailing list >> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org >
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
They should go on awaiting-sponsor, please. On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Bonnie Corwin wrote: > So where did we land on this? > > Are we putting them back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list or do they need to be > moved to the 'closed' list (because they aren't going to get fixed)? > > Thanks. > > Bonnie > > On 01/15/10 03:39 PM, Willi Burmeister wrote: >> Hi Ethan, >>> These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because >>> the sponsor is no longer with Sun. >>> >>> 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly >>> 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent >>> 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package >>> names >> Moriah Waterland got patches from me for all these bugids. So if the >> software will >> be available in the future I think it would be a good idea to fix these bugs. >> Willi >> ___ >> request-sponsor mailing list >> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org > > ___ > request-sponsor mailing list > request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
So where did we land on this? Are we putting them back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list or do they need to be moved to the 'closed' list (because they aren't going to get fixed)? Thanks. Bonnie On 01/15/10 03:39 PM, Willi Burmeister wrote: > Hi Ethan, > >> These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because >> the sponsor is no longer with Sun. >> >> 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly >> 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent >> 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package names > > Moriah Waterland got patches from me for all these bugids. So if the software > will > be available in the future I think it would be a good idea to fix these bugs. > > Willi > > > ___ > request-sponsor mailing list > request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
Hi Ethan, > These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because > the sponsor is no longer with Sun. > > 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly > 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent > 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package names Moriah Waterland got patches from me for all these bugids. So if the software will be available in the future I think it would be a good idea to fix these bugs. Willi
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:29 PM, James Carlson wrote: > Peter Tribble wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Ethan Quach wrote: >>> FYI, >>> >>> These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because >>> the sponsor is no longer with Sun. >>> >>> >>> 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly >>> 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent >>> >>> 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package >>> names >> >> Given the future of this software (or the decision that it hasn't >> got one), I'm thinking it's best to drop these. >> > > Won't these things still be issues for third-party packages? Third-party? Doubtful that they would use package names as long as SUNWstaroffice-gnome-integration. When I reported some of these and requested a sponsor, fixing them seemed like a good idea; 18 months with no access to the source has intervened, and a change in direction has come about, and I'm not sure I can muster the enthusiasm. If enough people think that fixing bugs in this area is worthwhile, then I'm prepared to reconsider. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Ethan Quach wrote: > FYI, > > These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because > the sponsor is no longer with Sun. > > > 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly > 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent > > 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package > names Given the future of this software (or the decision that it hasn't got one), I'm thinking it's best to drop these. -- -Peter Tribble http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
Peter Tribble wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 8:29 PM, James Carlson > wrote: >> Won't these things still be issues for third-party packages? > > Third-party? Doubtful that they would use package names as long as > SUNWstaroffice-gnome-integration. Good point. Given that the packages would fail on S8, they probably wouldn't bother doing that. > When I reported some of these and requested a sponsor, fixing them > seemed like a good idea; 18 months with no access to the source has > intervened, and a change in direction has come about, and I'm not > sure I can muster the enthusiasm. If enough people think that fixing bugs > in this area is worthwhile, then I'm prepared to reconsider. OK. (I'd thought that the old System V packaging stuff had made it into the ON consolidation as usr/src/cmd/svr4pkg/ ... so why "no access to the source?") -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
Peter Tribble wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:32 PM, Ethan Quach wrote: >> FYI, >> >> These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because >> the sponsor is no longer with Sun. >> >> >> 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly >> 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent >> >> 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package >> names > > Given the future of this software (or the decision that it hasn't > got one), I'm thinking it's best to drop these. > Won't these things still be issues for third-party packages? -- James Carlson 42.703N 71.076W
[request-sponsor] three requests back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list
FYI, These three bugs are back on the 'awaiting sponsor' list because the sponsor is no longer with Sun. 6424003 - pkginfo -l can't handle long package names properly 606 - Package name length definitions inconsistent 6443055 - pkgchk and pkgtrans are not able to deal with 32 char package names Thanks, -ethan
