> I guess, looking at the thread, that this was a response to me. > Assuming I'm correct there, all I can say is that this is not a > constructive response.
Oh I am sorry. But after I write this all here and maintain it for several monthes I guess I may expect constructive questions, which based on information I provided here. Your questions are clearly shows that you did not read it at all - otherwise you probably noticed that it is not about packages. Please do not waste my time and everybody else, and read it first otherwise how are you came up with this questions - just by reading last mail?! > > But just to humor myself, I searched for pkgadd in that thread, and > found nothing that answered my question. Nor did I find diff-marked man Here you are actually admitting that you did not read it! Again please read it not "search for pkgadd". How are you came up with this questions without reading?! Sorry, but this is design review not a casual chat. > pages, any other references to smpatch, or a specific discussion of the > format of the manifest file (as in, what's legal in it and what's not). > I could go on, but my response is that you've answered none of my > omments. > > Dave Yes am not answering - I just whan you to read this first and came prepared - not rolling out thousands of questions which based on simple lack of reading. This questiona are clearified already. Please, first came up with constructive quesions and then you will have constructive respond. vassun This message posted from opensolaris.org
