[I'm not the doc writer, just a developer.]
Josh Simons wrote:
Comments on the first 28 pages.
...
Page 17
"...then it is searched for in the other configured publishers"
--> "..then it is searched for in the other configured repositories"
Actually, that should be:
...then the catalogs of the remaining publishers will be searched.
The repositories are not searched for packages; the publisher catalogs are.
Page 20
How does "server" relate to the concepts of "publisher" or "repository?
server represents an origin_uri of a repository.
Example 3-6. What exactly is searched? In the returned results
'book' is part
of a directory name, not a 'description'...
What *exactly* is searched is beyond the scope of the documentation.
However, in general terms, the complete metadata of the package is
searched (this means attribute values, pathnames, filenames,
descriptions, etc.). The specifics should not be explained here as they
are subject to change and very based on the package metadata.
However, the package search output does indicate where matching entries
were found. Note that in the search results for Example 3-6, you see
'basename dir' and 'description set'. So, matching entries were found
when searching the pathnames of directories for packages and the
description of a package.
Example 3-7. Another mention of 'server' here.
That should probably be 'from the image's publisher repositories.'
Example 3-10. Does '-a' mean 'even if not installed'? if so, not
consistent with
pkg info's use of -r. if not, a description of -a would be useful.
It means "all known", but your wording is essentially correct.
Page 24
I find this concept of publisher to be very confusing. On page 15,
the example
FMRI describes 'opensolaris.org' as the publisher, but in the
examples here
publisher is not a host-like string. I see from the 2nd example that
the
publisher name can look host-like (opensolaris.org and sunfreeware.com)
and in both cases the associated URL includes the publisher name. Is
that required?
Technically, a publisher name is a forward or reverse domain name, but
they are not required to be so. Instead, think of a publisher name as
just an identifier for "a person, group of persons, or a corporation
that publishes a package" as noted on page 15.
The URL does not have to include the publisher name, the publisher name
could be extra.opensolaris.org while the url could be xkcd.net/325.
Eventually, the user won't have any control over publisher names so
these examples will change drastically and the user will only be
specifying URIs.
Page 25
It also does not help that the output of the 'pkg publisher' command
labels
(for example) http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release as a URL. It is a
repository,
yes? Or is it an origin-url? Or are they the same?
Actually, the sample output of pkg publisher on page 25 for examples
3-14 and 3-15 is no longer correct, it should be this (without the
wrapping of course):
pkg publisher
PUBLISHER TYPE STATUS URI
opensolaris.org (preferred) origin online
http://pkg.opensolaris.org/release/
How to Display Publishers: Says that publishers have associated URLs.
Should this be associated repositories? (which may be represented as
URLs?)
Actually: associated repositories and their associated origins and
mirrors (which are represented by URIs).
Cheers,
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
