OK, updated webrev (including the check/tests for hardlinks): http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/bug-388-2/
Thanks, Brad On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:15:45PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: > Sorry for the late review. > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 06:40:03PM -0700, Brad Hall wrote: > > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/bug-388-1/ > > client.py: > > - You need to update the usage message. > > - Is there any real reason to have fix -n, if it's exactly the same as > (but has fewer options than) pkg verify? > > - line 326: why the double underscore on illegals? > > - line 342, 343: combine? > > file.py: > > - line 53, 54: why are these class variables? > > pkgplan.py: > > - line 108: I don't think you can putback without fixing this. You're > essentially doing two passes, almost completely throwing away the work > of the first pass. You download everything in the package again, even > if it doesn't need fixing. Either image.verify() needs to return > actions that you can then pass to the repair pipeline, or verify needs > to take a flag that tells the action verify() routines to fix the > problems as they're found. > > Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
