The bug doesn't manifest itself if the package dependencies are in 
core.  See this bug for more information:   
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=9104

"If the dependency is on a package that's a core package (e.g., SUNWzlib), the
resulting manifest correctly includes the "depend fmri=SUNWzlib at 1.2.3-0.101 
<mailto:fmri=SUNWzlib at 1.2.3-0.101>
type=require" clause."

So for some packages, there won't be an issue and there won't be a need 
to rebuild.  The problem occurs when there is a dependency on a package 
that is in contrib or pending.  In this case, the manifest doesn't 
include the dependency.

We will discuss this at our team meeting this week.

Josh Simons wrote:
> In which case, doing the SPARC builds at the same time across the 
> board would make a lot
> of sense.
>
> Josh
>
> On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:11 PM, Eric Reid - Sun ISV Engineering wrote:
>
>> Given that the 'fix' flows from the move of SJ from Nevada to 
>> OpenSolaris, I'd recommend that a 'full build across the board' be 
>> planned -- this will get everything up to date, and allow 'old cruft' 
>> to be purged from /pending and the SJ logs.
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> ERR
>>
>>
>> Josh Simons wrote:
>>> I would put promotions on hold until the issue is fixed. Anyone who 
>>> requests a promotion
>>> should be informed of the situation and the notified when the 
>>> problem is fixed. I assume
>>> all package will need to be rebuilt at that point? Does that mean 
>>> porters
>>> will need to resubmit their packages for building or is there some 
>>> way for SJ to handle this
>>> automatically? Whatever the details, people should be fully informed 
>>> of the plan
>>> and any required next actions on their part, if any.
>>>
>>> A further question: If SJ is currently building incorrect packages, 
>>> should it be turned
>>> off until the problem is fixed?
>>>
>>> Josh Simons
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 8, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Amanda Waite wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why don't we put promotions on hold until the dependency issue is 
>>>> fixed?
>>>>
>>>> Ploticus will probably work ok without having any package 
>>>> dependencies listed in its manifest as it seems to only depend on 
>>>> what I'll call 'core' packages, but that's not really the point, is 
>>>> it? We probably shouldn't be promoting packages just because they 
>>>> were fortunate enough to work in spite of this bug.
>>>>
>>>> It's a community issue, what do others think? Should promotion be 
>>>> based purely on the package working on a standard OpenSolaris build 
>>>> or should all packages be required to correctly list any dependencies?
>>>>
>>>> Amanda
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mark Duggan wrote:
>>>>> Hi Josh,
>>>>>
>>>>> You might get a quicker response by posting to sourcejuicer-discuss.
>>>>> I just gave the package a +1. Now you another vote before promotion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/05/09 21:35, Josh Simons wrote:
>>>>>> Hi, Porters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a note to this list requesting promotion the correct way to 
>>>>>> move a pkg
>>>>>> from pending to contrib? Is there anything else I need to do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Simons
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Josh Simons <joshua.simons at sun.com>
>>>>>>> Date: June 2, 2009 3:43:38 PM EDT
>>>>>>> To: sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>>>> Subject: Request for promotion: Ploticus
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've built Ploticus (http://ploticus.sourceforge.net) using 
>>>>>>> SourceJuicer and
>>>>>>> have installed and tested the package on 2009.06. (The Juicer  
>>>>>>> 'Install' link is
>>>>>>> excellent, BTW.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had to apply some minor patches to the community tarball to fix a
>>>>>>> bug that prevented the package from being built correctly. The 
>>>>>>> patches
>>>>>>> have been given back to the community and I hope to see them
>>>>>>> incorporated in the next community release. The bug was not
>>>>>>> peculiar to OpenSolaris.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am requesting:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   pkg:/ploticus at 2.41,5.11-0.101:20090601T230557Z
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> be promoted to contrib.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Review details: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/review/packages/429/
>>>>>>> Build details: http://jucr.opensolaris.org/build/viewjob/1605/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Josh Simons
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> sw-porters-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> sw-porters-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sw-porters-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sourcejuicer-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sourcejuicer-discuss at opensolaris.org
>>>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sourcejuicer-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
>>     
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sourcejuicer-discuss mailing list
> sourcejuicer-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sourcejuicer-discuss


Reply via email to