Pete Dennis wrote:
Hey James,
Any chance of a code review for this bunch of simple
fixes ?
Sure - inline below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: [tools-discuss] code review request for some onbld changes, 2nd try
From: Rainer Orth <r...@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:25:45 +0200 (MEST)
To: tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
I've posted some of those changes already in may
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2009-May/004565.html
The fix for
6412893 SUNWonbld should install into /opt/SUNWonbld
met strong opposition and thus is omitted this time.
Should be removed from the changeset comments then, especially
since it's closed as "will not fix" :-)
Another one got several positive comments
6414833 SUNWonbld should use /opt as BASEDIR
but was omitted since my sponsor Pete Dennis and Mark J. Nelson suggested
that this will have to be reworked for IPS anyway (there are no pre- and
postinstall scripts anymore, and, despite
1 relocatable packages need to support a BASEDIR-like mechanism
IPS hasn't a BASEDIR equivalent at the moment).
I've got issues with the preinstall, preremove and postinstall
files in the http://cr.opensolaris.org/~rorth/onbld/ webrev, since
I'm working on
6414832 SUNWonbld gk account should be removed
6866716 estimation of max-jobs for /.make.machines is incorrect
and hope to have the changes for those (and 3 other CRs) pushed
by the close of this build. The issue there is that I'm getting
rid of any actual need to have CAS for the package as part of my
efforts to make the IPS rollout easier.
Instead, two fixes to cw were adding, which makes for the following set:
6663229 cw enters infinite loop if fork failed
6663216 cw(1) incorrectly refers to SOS10
6414843 SUNWonbld shouldn't install sgml man pages
6414845 groff reports warnings in SUNWonbld man pages
The webrev is at
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~rorth/onbld.minimal/
[snip]
Three questions:
* Is it important to split the two cw changes into their own changeset or
can the wad be committed as a whole?
* Since I had noted that $SRC/tools/SUNWonbld/prototype_com wasn't properly
sorted, as it is supposed to be, I've fixed this at the same time. Ok or
better omitted/split off?
* The wad contains several unrelated fixes for typos. There are no CRs for
those, which I hope is ok.
So ... onto the onbld.minimal webrev!
I have no comments or issues with the onbld.minimal webrev, those
changes look ok to me.
In answer to your q1, I'm in favour of committing those cw changes
together with the others you've made for this webrev.
In answer to your q2, I don't actually recall any hard+fast requirement
that SysV package prototype files be sorted, this aspect of your changeset
is not something I'm worried about as long as the eventual content ends
up being the same.
In answer to your q3, yes, that's fine.
cheers,
James C. McPherson
--
Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris
Sun Microsystems
http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
