jan damborsky wrote: > Hi Joe, > > > On 03/31/09 23:02, Joseph J. VLcek wrote: >> jan damborsky wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> could I please ask for reviewing changes for following bugs ? >>> >>> 6492 DC manifest does not allow for fully qualified FMRI package names >>> 7784 Install fails when specifying branch (build) in manifest >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6492 >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=7784 >>> >>> webrev: >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dambi/bug-6492-7784 >>> >>> Thank you very much, >>> Jan >>> >>> modules affected: >>> ----------------- >>> * DC & AI manifests >>> >>> testing done: >>> ------------- >>> * LiveCD based on build 106 built from http://ipkg.sfbay/dev >>> with following list of packages: >>> >>> <pkg name="entire at 0.5.11-0.106"/> >>> <pkg name="SUNWcsd"/> >>> <pkg name="SUNWcs"/> >>> <pkg name="slim_install at 0.1-0.106"/> >>> <pkg name="SUNWslim-utils at 0.5.11-0.106"/> >>> >>> Resulting image booted fine. >>> >>> * AI installation done with 110 AI image with >>> following list of package specified in manifest: >>> >>> <ai_install_packages> >>> <pkg name="entire at 0.5.11-0.110"/> >>> <pkg name="SUNWcsd"/> >>> <pkg name="SUNWcs"/> >>> <pkg name="babel_install"/> >>> </ai_install_packages> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> usr/src/cmd/ai-webserver/default.xml >> usr/src/cmd/auto-install/ai_manifest.xml >> usr/src/cmd/distro_const/slim_cd/all_lang_slim_cd_x86.xml >> usr/src/cmd/distro_const/slim_cd/slim_cd_x86.xml >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Nit: Just a suggestion on the comment wording. >> ---------------------------------------------- >> >> Jan, I don't mean for this comment to reflect poorly on your >> English. I just thought this sounded better. Your English is >> far better than my Czech, or any other language for that matter. > > Thanks :-) Actually, foreign languages are not my strong point, > so those kind of comments are alway appreciated :-) > >> >> Anyway here is my suggestion. Apply it if you think it sounds better. >> >> If you decide to make it, I don't feel this change requires any >> further testing. > > I have incorporated suggested changes and updated the webrev - > in case you would like to take a look. > >> >> Please consider changing from: >> 34 By default, latest build available in given IPS >> 35 repository is installed. >> 36 If other build is required, build number has >> 37 to be appended to the 'entire' package in following >> 38 form: >> >> To: >> 34 By default the latest build available, in the >> specified IPS >> 35 repository, is installed. >> 36 If another build is required, the build number has >> 37 to be appended to the 'entire' package in following >> 38 form: >> >> Question: >> --------- >> >> >> Is there situation where any package, besides 'entire', would need to >> have the build number appended to it? > > According to the David's comment, appending build number > just to 'entire' should be sufficient starting build 110. > > For older builds, version should be appended to other packages > as well - it is planned to be documented in FAQ section. > >> >> >> usr/src/cmd/distro_const/ValidatorModule.py >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Je dobra (is good ;) > > Understood :-) > > Thank you very much for review ! > Jan >
Looks good Jan. Joe
