On Tue Mar 20 14:14:33 2012, Dave Miner wrote: > On 03/20/12 04:10, Darren Kenny wrote: >> Hi Shawn, >> >> On 16/03/2012 20:12, Shawn Walker wrote: >>> On 03/16/12 05:38, Darren Kenny wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Could I please get a code review for the following bug and RFE: >>>> >>>> 7152537 AI fails to install packages with licenses using must-display=true >>>> and not must-accept=true >>>> >>>> 7145997 noinstall element should be implemented as reject for >>>> pkg transfer >>> >>> It may be too late to change this, but 'noinstall' doesn't exactly roll >>> off the tongue. Why was this term used instead of 'reject'? >> >> At the time that the DTD was first envisaged, the term 'reject' wasn't in >> use by pkg. >> >> Other than that, I've no idea why noinstall was used originally. >> >> We could look at a bug to change it at a later date if the DTD is being >> reved anyway - but otherwise we are pretty much stuck with it, even revving >> it could actually present reason for maintaining support for both names... >> > > Since we've not previously implemented this for any of the transfer > modes, I think it could be changed without concern for compatibility. > "Reject" isn't a term that is commonly used with other modes such as > cpio, but then neither is "noinstall". I'd probably opt to change it > based on the assumption that most of the uses that end-users will have > would be pkg-style transfers, though I'm planning to implement it for > cpio internally at least (7123561).
OK - so you're saying it would be OK to change this without revving the DTD? Based on no existing users that makes sense. So could I propose then that we use the term "exclude" - this would seem to fit the pkg and CPIO usages better? Thanks, Darren. _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
