Question to pkg-discuss: I've observed that the new naming scheme seems to incorporate version numbers into the name, just as the old versioning scheme did.
Specifically I saw this instance: SUNWapch -> system/apache/server/13 SUNWapch22 -> system/apache/server/22 in the current proposed list of names. I know that 'everything in the WOS' seems to be tagged generically with version @0.5.11 so the version string is already consumed [at least at the moment]. But wouldn't it be more appropriate for these packages to be named: system/apache/[email protected] [or whatever] system/apache/[email protected] [or whatever] I can certainly see why everything in ON would tracks against the version 0.5.11, but what I believe I am trying to understand why non-ON packages are not moving towards their own "more natural" [well known? externally defined?] release versions? This also begs the rhetorical question of what happens if apache were to ship apache 22.0.0? I can only assume by then we would have: system/apache/server/13 system/apache/server/22 system/apache/server/23 system/apache/server/24 ... system/apache/server/212 etc. Thanks in advance, Doug. Rich Burridge wrote:
Hi all, Looking for a code review of the proposed changes for fixing bug #6822: http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=6822 dependencies not installed Webrev is at: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~richb/pkg-6822-v1/ Thanks. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
_______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
