On 20/03/2012 14:50, Dave Miner wrote: > On 03/20/12 10:42, Darren Kenny wrote: >> 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. >> > > Right. > >> So could I propose then that we use the term "exclude" - this would >> seem to >> fit the pkg and CPIO usages better? >> > > I'd be more inclined to ensure we had terminology that aligned with pkg > in this case. I could see having both as synonyms, I guess, but I'm not > sure it's worth the trouble. >
Ok, so "reject" it is then... > We do need to file a small ARC case to record whatever change. > > Dave _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
