On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 01:56:16PM -0700, Brock Pytlik wrote:
> On 07/11/12 19:10, Edward Pilatowicz wrote:
> >hey all,
> >
> >i'm looking for a review for:
> >
> >https://cr.opensolaris.org/action/browse/pkg/edp/pkg.uninstall/webrev
> >7140215 pkg uninstall should probably ignore parent dependencies
> >
> >i updated the bug description today with a summary of my reasoning
> >behind this fix.
> >
> >thanks,
> >ed
> >_______________________________________________
> >pkg-discuss mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
> imageplan.py:
> 360: couldn't this be written more simply as:
>
> ignore_inst_parent_deps = not li_sync_op
>
done.
> I'm having trouble understanding how the changes in lines 370-390
> and 585-595 are related to this bug. Can you elaborate on why it's
> better to uncommonize this code?
>
i initially thought it was better because it removed parameters from a
public interface, then i realized the __solve_install() was a private
interface, so i backed the changes out.
>
> t_linked_image:
> nit: 1340 and 1348: number mismatch in the comments between "a
> out-of-sync" and "packages"
>
fixed.
> General question:
> Suppose the image is out of sync but upgrading (or downgrading) a
> package brings it more into sync. Is that allowed? I didn't see a
> test for that situation.
>
it's all allowed and i added tests for it.
i've updated imageplan.py and test_unsynced_image_operations():
https://cr.opensolaris.org/action/browse/pkg/edp/pkg.uninstall2/webrev/
thanks for looking at this.
ed
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
