I've updated the webrev to reflect this decision. I'm assuming if anyone had issues they would have told me by now.
COMPRESSION_TYPE is a required parameter and it's existence is checked in verify_conf which executes in the beginning. The values of COMPRESSION_TYPE are checked via the invocation of lofiadm out of the DIST_PROTO area when you're actually compressing solaris.zlib. When checkpointing goes in eventually this won't be a burden. Short term, it may be. Addresses: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=1125 Webrev: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/distro_constructor/ Jean Jean McCormack wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: > >> Channing Lovely wrote: >> >>> As I said before, I am fine with your code changes. I am pretty sure >>> that introducing some weird checking into the DC code is probably not >>> the way to go. However, we need to do something. The DC page on >>> opensolaris.org says >>> >>> In order to use the Distribution Constructor, you must have installed >>> Solaris Nevada build 71 or a later build on your system. >>> >>> and that is clearly not true anymore. The SXDE 1/08 won't work (based >>> on 79b) for several reasons, and preview 2 will probably fail due to >>> the SUNWclofi issue. I think the main page on opensolaris.org needs >>> to be updated, and there should be a bug against the man page for >>> lofiadm. >>> >> You have the rights to modify the opensolaris page, so use them if you >> see something that isn't right. >> >> I suggest these choices: >> >> - Eliminate the validation of this parameter, let it fail if it's >> wrong when that point in the build is reached >> > Without checkpoints this could be painful for the user. But probably > the least frustrating for the user. Once checkpoints go in, it's not a big > deal to have the build fail here. > >> - Only issue a warning if Jean's proposed validation fails >> > With the number of messages we spew to the screen in the IPS retrieval > and the gnome stuff I hesitate to do this. I'm afraid it will > get lost in the cruft. If we can get rid of some of those messages, this > might be nice. But it would be confusing to see this warning and > then later everything works fine. > >> - Require that the build system have a version of lofiadm which >> supports the compression we want (potentially at a configurable path); >> in which case, we'd use that one to build and not the one we install >> in the proto area. >> >> > My concern here is whether or not people can upgrade their SUNWclofi > package. So then we need to supply a configurable path which just seems > like yet another parameter for the user to think about. Doesn't seem > important enough for that. > > So I don't like any of my choices. But I think I dislike 1 the least. > Clay agreed and I didn't even lead him down that path. He actually liked > combining > 1 and 2. > >> Jean, your testing is suspect here: lines 113 and 114 in >> build_dist.lib don't agree on what path is being used. >> > Actually there are 2 bugs here that made things appear to work when I > tested them. As you noted, I have conflicting paths. Unfortunately, > my testing didn't find this because neither one is defined and thus > defaults to /temp. I've figured out why. > > > > Jean > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
