Sean Sprague wrote: > Hey Bart! > > Thanks for the reply. Comments mainly at the foot... > >> We should add a -v option like pkg list has, perhaps. In any case, >> pkg list -av SUNWts reports: > > Possibly; but the RFE level is somewhere near "nit". > >> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pkg list -av SUNWts >> FMRI STATE >> UFIX >> pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.86:20080426T180521Z known >> ---- >> pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.86:20080422T223257Z known >> u--- >> pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.79:20080205T170331Z known >> u--- >> pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.75:20071114T203942Z known >> u--- >> : [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> >> There are indeed two versions of the build 86 pkg; we decided not >> to delete the first version (which was part of release candidate 2). > > Absolutely fair. > >> In the future, republication will be more incremental, and only packages >> with real changes will get multiple versions. > > Equally reasonable. > > Playing devil's advocate, I tried to install an earlier version from the > repository, and came unstuck; and I think that I smell a rat... > > If I try to pkg install the latest version of SUNWts .86 by specifying > its full FMRI, it installs fine. If I try to install the previous > datestamped version of .86 by specifying its full FMRI, it installs > fine. If I try to pkg install an earlier version (.79 or .75) by > specifying its full FMRI, I get a python traceback which ends in the text: > > NameError: could not retrieve manifest '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' from > 'http://pkg.opensolaris.org:80' > > So I suspect that when I install successfully either of the .86 > versions, only the current/latest one is actually installed (and not the > earlier-datestamped version when I specify its full FMRI); and when I > try to install a version prior to .86, it tries to install the .86 > version, but somehow the FMRI gets munged from containing a "," to its > ASCII "%2C", which provokes a barf. > > Obv pkg is largely aimed at maintaining the latest versions of packages, > but for regression testing previous ones need to be available (as they > are; just I can't get ahold of any ;-) ). Obv also, this is a singleton > case, and may not in the slightest reflect on other packages (TX being > an awkward sausage at the best of times ;-) ). >
There's a bug there.... I'm looking for it. The incorporation (pkg named entire) forces the downrev package up-to-date, but there's a problem w/ fetching the manifest. Investigating... - Bart -- Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blogs.sun.com/barts "You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird." _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
