On 02/20/12 15:09, Danek Duvall wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
I'd also like to suggest we have pkg.vendor to easily identify the
company that produced the package easily (e.g. set name=pkg.vendor
value=Oracle).
Eh, I'm not sold on that.
Alternative suggestions welcomed. Liane thought I should add this or an
equivalent as part of this proposal.
It came up recently with appcert(1) where it would have been nice to be
able to reliably identify Oracle-provided packages based on metadata.
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
solaris
entire
Installed: FCS Build 2 (0.5.11-0.175.0.0.0.2.0)
Latest: SRU 2 Build 3 (0.5.11-0.175.0.2.0.3.0)
Proposed: SRU 1 Build 4 (0.5.11-0.175.0.1.0.4.0)
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
solaris
entire
Installed: FCS Build 2 (0.5.11-0.175.0.0.0.2.0)
Proposed (Latest): SRU 2 Build 3 (0.5.11-0.175.0.2.0.3.0)
...can be simplified to (assuming only one publisher offers the package):
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
Oracle Solaris
Package: entire
Installed: FCS Build 2
Latest: SRU 2 Build 3
Proposed: SRU 1 Build 4
PACKAGE CHANGE SUMMARY
Oracle Solaris
Package: entire
Installed: FCS Build 2
Proposed (Latest): SRU 2 Build 3
I thought the point was to get rid of "entire" from the output, but it's
still there.
Correct. The concern was that if you specified "pkg update
entire@mumble" it wouldn't otherwise be obvious how that mapped to the
result. In addition, in an error scenario, you'd need to know the name
of the package to specify if you wanted a specific version.
You seem to have replaced the publisher name "solaris" with
the product name "Oracle Solaris". Am I misunderstanding the intent, or
did you typo this?
No, that's the intended result. To make the product name the "headline"
for the particular change, and to make the specifics details of that.
If you believe this to be misleading or confusing, please expound.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
