James C. McPherson writes:
> > 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" :-)
It has already been removed:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~rorth/onbld/
was the original webrev which has been completely superceded by
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~rorth/onbld.minimal/
> 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.
No problem here: those files aren't on the table anymore.
> > 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.
Thanks.
> 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.
Excellent, thanks.
Any other comments?
Rainer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
_______________________________________________
tools-discuss mailing list
tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
