+1 on Mandy's take.

As I've mentioned several times before on these aliases, the drupal* 
submissions have an install-time dependency, and that dependency is NOT 
getting built into the IPS package created from SJ -- just check the IPS 
manifests. I therefore consider these packages 'broken', and have not 
advertised them to the Drupal Community.

I would *not* vote drupal* into /contrib at this time, because they are 
incorrect, and that therefore prevents 'soak in' testing by the Community.

I'm not sure I understand this 'bug' that is mentioned... if it's a 
build-time thing, it wouldn't impact install-time. If it's a bug in SJ, 
I'd imagine it should be highest priority, and that *NO* pkgs with 
dependencies could move forward until it's fixed.

Is this a fair assessment, and if not, what am I missing here? I 
consider most of the packages coming from Sun ISV-E (which have 
install-time dependencies) to be 'on hold' because of this at the moment.

ERR



Amanda Waite wrote:
> Christian Kelly wrote:
>> Amanda Waite wrote:
>>> There's a number of SJ packages in /contrib and in jucr's /pending 
>>> that don't have the dependencies that were called out in their spec 
>>> files, listed in their manifests. i.e. in /contrib:
>>>
>>> - haproxy
>>> - pidgin-facebookchat
>>> - The django-* packages
>>>
>>> In fact I could only find two packages in /pending that listed any 
>>> dependencies at all: CallWeaver and JFlex.
>>>
>>> Examples of ones that don't list any dependencies in packages 
>>> published to /pending (but do have them in their spec files):
>>>
>>> Geany
>>> drupal5
>>> drupal6
>>> spandsp
>>>
>>> This came about while trying to work out why the drupal packages 
>>> didn't include their dependencies. All of the others might be 
>>> explained by changes being made after the packages were published, 
>>> but this isn't the case for the drupal packages.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something or is there a problem somewhere?
>>
>> This is a side-effect of a bug. There is a problem installing 
>> dependencies on the build clients, so we're discouraging people from 
>> defining them until we get this fixed.
>
> Actually, can you help us understand this a little better? The missing 
> package dependencies are required in order to install a package, 
> nothing to do with build time, all that apparently needs to be done is 
> to add the necessary 'depend' directives to the manifest. Is a build 
> client something that builds a package or something that is used to 
> test a package by installing it? It seems that even if the install 
> time dependencies (those specified through 'Requires:') were missing 
> from the build systems the packages would still be installable from 
> consumers of the repository.
>
> We can't really release Drupal 5/6 as packages if there are no 
> guarantees that Apache and PHP are installed first, which is why Eric 
> has held back on submitting them for a vote thus far.  Other packages 
> that I've listed will surely suffer from the same issues.
>
> Thanks
>
> Amanda
>
>
>>
>> _Christian
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Amanda
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> sw-porters-discuss mailing list
>>> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sw-porters-discuss mailing list
> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss


-- 


        

   Eric Reid

   Staff Engineer, Software
   Sun Microsystems, Inc.

         
 

  Phone: +1 269.629.7238
  Cell:     +1 269.569.1042
  Fax:     +1 650.352.4428
  Blog:    http://blogs.sun.com/err
  AIM:     ereidsan
  Skype:    erreid
        


Reply via email to