Brock Pytlik wrote:
Hmm. I think it depends on whether we're totally deprecating the
description field, or if the summary and description fields are both
going to remain, but should be different things. If we're totally
deprecating, then it's fine for PackageInfo not to have a
description entry. If we want both around, but with different
values, then PackageInfo should expose that.
From a sample size of one (but a good sample since it was Danek), it
sounds like we're going to want to have both in a package. The
description will be storing the long description of the package. So,
PackageInfo should probably present both to the world.
Okay. So should that be a separate bug or should I add it in as part
of this one?
Thanks.
I could go either way personally. If you want to fix it as part of
this wad, then I'd say just do it and it's part of making pkg.summary
work correctly. If you don't, then file a bug for it and leave it for
a different wad. Of course, others may feel differently.
I've opened http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=9414
for the PackageInfo problem. I too would like to keep them separate
(to try to get some closure on all these open bugs I have in progress).
I'm happy to take on bug #9414 when some of these other fixes have
been checked in.
> Also, the changes LGTM.
Thanks. Looking for one more reviewer. Same for bug #4178.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
