webrev: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~quenelle/webrev.15623/
Line 22 - you may want to augment the comment to indicate this is to
make sure the older "sunstdio" package is cleared out on upgrade as in
#
# This dependency is to ensure the older, renamed package is properly
# removed on update.
#
Lines 26-33 - Although we try not to republish obsolete or renamed
packages in the WOS, this isn't a strong requirement for so-called
unbundled packages. I have no objections to leaving this uncommented
and having RE republish it; otherwise, please do just remove it from
the import file.
Line 40 - Remove trailing slash on the comment and move into the larger
comment block above it.
Line 64 - s/it's/its/
Line 66 - you may want to augment the comment to indicate this is to
make sure the older "sunstdio" package is cleared out on upgrade as in
Lines 76-81 - Same comment as above concerning lines 26-33. Either
leave it uncommented or remove it completely.
Line 94 - Move into the larger comment block above it.
Lines 102-126 - I'm a bit confused whether or not SSX runs on 2009.06
or not. I thought the checklist said a later release was required but
your email also stated
-- dependencies were reverted to old package names
in case installing on 2009.06 is deemed important
If we're going to publish it against 2009.06 (and if indeed works
there, that's what I recommend), then I would delete the commented out
new package names for now.
Otherwise, remove the old names and uncomment the new ones. If you go
this route, please sort the list of dependencies.
Lines 134-152 - Please sort the list of dependencies (studio-ide before
studio-legal, for example.)
Line 155 - you may want to augment the comment to indicate this is to
make sure the older "sunstdio" package is cleared out on upgrade as in
Starting at line 173 with each of the individual packages, the
convention we typically order things in is
package ...
classification ... (one or more lines)
summary ...
version ...
add set ... (one or more lines)
import ... (one or more lines)
depend ... (one or more lines)
Please adjust these packages to conform as such.
There are also some new classifications included - some comments on
those
"Development/Build"
We've been using "Development/Distribution Tools" for
this sort of thing so please use that instead.
"Development/Debugging"
Although I could see justification for such a
classification, we've been using "Development/System"
here for the other debuggers so I would use that
instead.
"Development/Performance Measurement"
There doesn't seem to be anything suitable here but I
would suggest this instead be
""Development/Observability" since that's the common
term used for tools like this (Development or
otherwise) in Solaris.
Also for each of these packages, please make sure each list of
dependencies is sorted.
Some comments on specific packages...
Line 226 - Based on the summary, what exactly is the contents of this
package? What is the purpose of the copies of the libraries?
Line 246 - This line can be folded to avoid wrapping the line by using
the form
summary \
"A simple GUI for using..."
Line 255 - It seems a code name ("Aten") doesn't belong in a summary as
it's not meaningful to the end-user.
Line 268 - Another line that be folded as in
add set name=info.keyword \
value="distributed parallel build, make, ..."
Line 300 - Rather than just the brief "interval libraries" should this
be qualified as in "Sun interval arithmetic library" or something like
that?
Line 307 - Same comment here? What sort of math library?
Line 322 - How about something like "Scalapack - scalable linear
algebra package" or something with a little more detail? Also, should
that be "ScaLAPACK"?
Line 329 - What exactly is delivered by this package? Are they legal
files delivered into the file system as with other unbundled packages?
Please confirm that each SVR4 package still will include its own
corresponding copyright and license information contained within the
SVR4 copyright file.
Line 337 - Another line that be folded as in
summary \
"Common internal components needed by..."
Lines 365-384 - More lines that can be folded into the form
add depend type=incorporate \
fmri=...
Line 385 - Did you mean to exclude studio-netbeans from the
incorporation? If so, why?
Lines 395-403 - Same comment as above concerning lines 26-33. Either
leave it uncommented or remove it completely.
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
