On Fri 18 Apr 2008 at 02:35PM, Danek Duvall wrote:
> Sure. This is what's currently there. The empty output from the first
> example was what I was asking about, but I'm sure the messaging could be
> improved for all the errors. Here are the local infos:
>
> # In catalog, not installed (exit=0):
> $ pkg info SUNWzsh
Hmm. This one is the confusing one. Should we print a stub of some
kind saying that the package is "known" Isn't that what "known" is for?
> Here are the remote infos. Note that the SUNWtcat output is the same as
> for the local case, because there's only one version to be had. If there
> were more than one, and I didn't have the latest installed, it would get
> the information for the latest version from the server. I believe that it
> would say "Not installed" in that case, though we should probably figure
> out how to make it say "Upgradable".
Yeah. Or we should have a "Local Version" and "Remote Version"
thing in the output... or something. Perhaps, file a bug, so we
have a record that we need to come back around.
> # In catalog, not installed (exit=0):
> $ pkg info -r SUNWzsh
> Name: SUNWzsh
> Summary: Z shell (zsh)
> State: Not installed
> Authority: opensolaris.org (preferred)
> Version: 4.3.4
> Build Release: 5.11
> Branch: 0.84
> Packaging Date: Wed Apr 16 22:12:11 2008
> Size: 4.0 MB
> FMRI: pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.84:20080416T221211Z
I didn't think we had a state called "Not Installed"? Stephen had
some very precise opinions about this, see bug #1168.
> # In catalog, installed (exit=0):
> $ pkg info -r SUNWtcat
> Name: SUNWtcat
> Summary: Tomcat Servlet/JSP Container
> State: Installed
> Authority: opensolaris.org (preferred)
> Version: 5.5.25
> Build Release: 5.11
> Branch: 0.84
> Packaging Date: Wed Apr 16 22:03:47 2008
> Size: 23.7 MB
> FMRI: pkg:/[EMAIL PROTECTED],5.11-0.84:20080416T220347Z
I like this output-- would it argue for -r to be the default?
Something to explore for later.
> Yeah, I dunno. I'm pretty certain nothing will break because the manifest
> can't be written. Anything where you wouldn't have perms to install will
> fail later now than it would have previously, but that's the only behavior
> change there. As for banging on the server a lot, yeah, I suppose.
> Another wad?
Yeah-- maybe note it with a bug report. I know you disabled:
'pkg info -r' (no argument)
Should we (or did you?) do the same for "pkg list -as"? That will have the
same effect of pulling down a lot of manifests too as best I can recall.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
