On Monday February 20, at 7:39PM, Shawn Walker wrote: > 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.
In what context does appcert care if a package is supplied by Oracle? Is it inferring a level of support or stability based on the information? Oracle produces a diverse set of software all told. --chris > >>> 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 _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
