Thanks for reviewing this, Shawn. I appreciate your time.
Shawn Walker wrote: > On 06/ 1/10 11:30 AM, Chris Quenelle wrote: >> June 1 update: >> >> https://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=15623 >> >> I made some updates to the Solaris Studio packages to fix some >> bugs and add new licensing files required by legal. >> >> complete webrev: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~quenelle/webrev.15623/ > > > src/util/distro-import/unbundleds/Studio: > lines 76-81, 102-112, 396-403: if we don't need it; remove it or > don't add it instead of commenting it. We've already gone through our testing cycle with the version you reviewed. I removed this comment in my workspace, and if we need to turn the crank again, I'll remove it. > > line 203: what's this info.keyword thing for? I'm not aware of any > of our clients using it. As Danek said, it's searched as arbitrary metadata by the GUI and command line clients. > > line 226: This summary could be a bit more explanatory or detailed. > The current one assumes forknowledge of what Solaris normally > delivers, but doesn't really tell me why I would want this > package. There isn't a good one-line summary of why the oslibs package needs to exist in express releases. It's a klunky wart because of the way the unbundled compilers are released asynchronously with Solaris. It's similar to the "backend" package in that you automatically get it via dependencies. There's no need for end users to see, understand or worry about the oslibs package. > > line 326-331: Why are these delivered in their own package? To ensure > only a single set is delivered? Some other reason? Yes, we only need the legal files to occur once in the installation directory. These files are finalized at the last minute relative to other packages, so it's much simpler for us to keep them in a separate package. > > line 364: This summary doesn't match the generic one we seem to use > for other incorporations. I'm not saying the current ones are > preferred, but it would be nice to decide on something consistent. If we need to respin, I'll change this to: summary "incorporation to lock all Studio packages to same build" in order to avoid unnecessary cognitive dissonance. > > Someone else should review this too. > > Cheers, > -Shawn If anyone thinks any of my explanations here should be reflected in the comments inside the import file, let me know. --chris _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
