Hi David, David.Comay at Sun.COM wrote: > Actually the convention we often have used with SFW is that the version > number appears in the DESC field only (at the end, usually surrounded > by parenthesis as in (1.2.3)). The NAME field typically has a more > general description of the component in question.
Ok, there are a few like that, there are many other variations though. On the ones that do have it specified this way it's not obvious that it's a component version (probably is to someone familiar with the component), i.e.: DESC="SQLite3, an embeddable, zero-conf, self-contained, serverless transactional SQL engine (3.5.4) I also have the likes of (Root components) at the end of my DESC fields so it would end up as: DESC="The Lighttpd Web Server (1.4) (Root components)" Which I think looks ok. > >> Most components are not integrated with a specific version, so you might >> integrate version 6.8 of a component and through patches might rev that >> to version 6.9 and then 7.2 and as the patches won't update the package >> fields, if the version was specified initially in those fields, they >> would at some point in time no longer reflect the actual version of the >> installed and patched component. > > As Danek points out, it's unlikely we'll be distributing patches as we > know them today for releases after Solaris 10 so this isn't a concern. This was just an example of why it was considered a problem, perhaps the prime example. > >> The Lighttpd package's DESC and NAME fields refer to "Lighttpd v1.4" and >> the packages are SUNWlighttpd14[r|u]. Patches can rev Lighttpd to >> version 1.4.19 or 1.4.20 or any other 1.4.x micro version, but they >> can't rev them to 1.5.0 or 2.0.1. Lighttpd 1.5 or Lighttpd 2.0 would be >> completely new integrations. So as we are integrating Lighttpd 1.4 it >> would be correct to say in the pkginfo that the package contains >> "Lighttpd 1.4" and that's the plan. > > I think that's fine although I would put the version number only in the > DESC field and perhaps expand the description there too (see pkginfo(5) > for more information on the difference between the NAME and DESC > fields.) Ok, pending further comments, I'll leave the version out from the NAME field, move it to parens in the DESC field and look at expanding the DESC field based on pkginfo(5). Thanks for the feedback (and sorry to Jyri for asking this on a new thread). Amanda
