Responses to the comments are inline. Thanks for the prompt response. I
did another pull -u to merge in the more recent changes and there were
no conflicts.
Is this approved to push now? Should I fill in RFE 160 first with a full
description of all of the porting changes done so far?
Danek Duvall wrote:
>
> actions/user.py:
>
> - line 172: no return value from remove()
>
Fixed.
> portable/__init__.py:
>
> - line 160: you can get rid of the need for impl_found, I think, by using
> for/else: if you fall off the end of a for-loop, the optional else
> clause will get executed. (If you break out of the for-loop, the else
> clause is skipped.)
>
Very nice. Thanks for the tip for a python newbie.
> portable/os_darwin.py:
>
> - line 29: I believe that if you put this in quotes instead of making it
> a block comment, pydoc will pick this up as the module docstring. If
> that works, it's worth doing. Same for the others.
>
Fixed. Had to move the import statements below the docstring for this
to work.
> portable/os_unix.py:
>
> - line 126: it looks like this got lost in the last round:
>
> if passwd_stamp <= users_lastupdate.get(dirpath, 0):
>
Fixed.
> elfextract.c:
>
> - line 376: you were going to change this to match the previous ifdef?
>
Yes, I thought I made this change already. Fixed (again).
> server/transaction.py:
>
> - line 235: ready for the symbolic version of 501? Probably want to wrap
> the line after the comma, too.
>
>
fixed.
> - line 236: thinking about this, I'm wondering if it should just ignore
> the elf-special file handling and continue to store the file. If
> you're not running into problems with this now, don't worry about it,
> but the present behavior seems a bit odd.
>
We do currently see this problem when running the server on Solaris 9 or
Solaris 10 before U4 because the libmd.so file is not there so the elf
module import fails. We are currently working on a fix for that
(support for these older releases will
be added later).
I went ahead and changed this to ignore the elf special file handling.
The new code is like this:
if haveelf and data[:4] == "\x7fELF":
The comment and the request.send_response - NOT_IMPLEMENT is now gone.
So now the behavior is that it silently ignores the elf special handling
if the elf module is not available. (not sure that I like the
"silently" part).
Thanks.
Tom
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
