Andras: Thanks for the response. I found the example on how to fill up the Metainfo in http://opensolaris.org/os/community/sw-porters/contributing/specdesc/nano.spec.txt but it has no pkg.dtailed_url item, can you let me know what this pkg.detailed_url indicated.
Thanks, Chris Andras Barna ??: > it's in the pending repo! > http://jucr.opensolaris.org/pending/info/0/blender%402.48%2C5.11-0.101%3A20090417T163755Z > > please add the Meta() things! > > Meta(info.upstream): > Meta(info.repository_url): > Meta(info.maintainer): ___name____ <__email__> > Meta(pkg.detailed_url): > > > > 2009/5/5 C Wang <Chris.Wang at sun.com>: > >> Team: >> Can someone review the spec for blender, I will need a +1 to put it into >> pending repo. >> >> A OSR for blender has already been approved, for Sun employee, please >> refer to >> >> Open Source Review #10682 >> >> Thanks >> Chris >> >> >> Christian Kelly ??: >> >>> C Wang wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Christian: >>>> I need someone to review the blender.spec and give a +1 to move the spec >>>> to Pending repository. Do you know any mail aliasing I can send to those >>>> who have the specified privilege? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> You can ask for a review on sourcejuicer-discuss at opensolaris.org. You >>> need an OSR to be able to put your package in an external repo. Do you >>> have an OSR? >>> >>> _Christian >>> >>> >>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> Christian Kelly ??: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> C Wang wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Christian: >>>>>> I submitted the spec-file for blender last week, and I found the spec is >>>>>> fail to build with sourcejuicer with the error message: >>>>>> >>>>>> **pkgbuild: ## Validating control scripts. >>>>>> pkgbuild: ## Packaging complete. >>>>>> pkgbuild: Calling script /packages/PKGMAPS/scripts/blender_ips.sh >>>>>> pkgbuild: pkgsend: open failed (status 400) >>>>>> ** >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> The problem here is having letters in the package version. The version >>>>> was something like 2.3a. This causes the IPS publishing to fail. I tried >>>>> to fix it, but didn't get it all the way fixed. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> and it seems that all recently submitted spec file are hit the same >>>>>> problem, do you have any idea of it. Also, I found it seems that the >>>>>> sourcejuicer is not support %doc grammar yet, is it true? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Sourcjuicer *does* support %doc. >>>>> >>>>> _Christian >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> sourcejuicer-discuss mailing list >> sourcejuicer-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sourcejuicer-discuss >> >> > > > >
