On 06/14/12 08:15 PM, Danek Duvall wrote:
The versions of the old package names should have a buildid, too:20110208-0.175.1.0.0.19.0 I think this is what April asked you to get rid of? The reason I'd keep it is so that should we need to respin those packages for build 19, we can do so, and have the incorporation be able to tell the difference. Plus all the other package versions go out to that level. The dependencies connecting the old and new packages are fine as they are, since optional and require specify a minimum, not a minimum and a maximum like a incorporate dependency does.
Aha - that does make sense. I'll put it back as was.
The comments "Force the dependency on the old package name" don't have much meaning to someone who doesn't already know why that's there. You should say "Ensure that we upgrade the old package name to the version where it's renamed", or something that indicates *why* we're doing this.
Agree entirely - Change made. Bad comments make bad maintenance.
You might make a comment in the makefile that the .0 is for the non-+ version, and that a +'ed version (eg, 93u+) should have a 1 in that spot. For future maintainers.
I'll make their lives easier :-)
Thanks, Danek
_______________________________________________ userland-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/userland-discuss
