Danek Duvall wrote: >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richb/pkg-5779-v1/ > > So like I said in the bug, I think you're going to want two different > status values -- "obsolete" and "replaced". > > The code looks fine, but I would also check that the status value is legal, > just to save on customer discovery of typos in the future.
I've (hopefully) made your suggested changes. <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2008-December/009463.html> New webrev is at: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richb/pkg-5779-v2/ <http://cr.opensolaris.org/%7Erichb/pkg-5779-v2/> Stephen (Hahn) wrote: > Since there is no update to anything in doc/, or to a manual page, > this work isn't done. Understood. I've added a comment to bug #5779 on this: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=5779#c4 That bug is now dependent upon bug #2316, and I won't make any further changes to this one until the complete package life-cycle has been determined and .../doc/pkg-states.txt has been updated. Thanks. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
