Danek Duvall wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gvasick/13451/
Why are you bumping the version number of the 4.3.2 packages? If the sole
reason is to have a known version you can incorporate, then please do this
with the branch version: "4.3.2-1" would be fine. This is a vendor
packaging change, which is what the branch version should generally be used
for when the release version is otherwise meaningful.
It is the former. I'll switch it to 4.3.2-1.
You should probably use incorporate dependencies instead of optional ones,
though the likelihood that it'll make any difference (i.e., that you'll
want to publish a new version of the 4.3.2 packages) is next to zero.
I'll make this change as well.
If you're obsoleting 4.3.2 and introducing a replacement, then why not
simply rename the package instead?
Since the new packaging has some overlapping pathnames with the exiting
packaging, I wanted to make sure we didn't leave the package database in
a weird state. For people who already have 432 installed, I thought it
would be best to remove 432 before installing 433. Is this overkill and
not really necessary?
Why do you have a "gcc-" prefix on all of the component packages?
Good point since the packages are located under developer/gcc. I will
remove the gcc- prefixes.
Thanks,
George
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
