>
> To try to put it briefly: if I were really moving forward, I'd that in
> oi-build (where a later version of Mercurial is already in place for
> sustaining). As I'm just doing some minor shifting (sideways instead of
> forward, as it were), it seemed simpler to do this with the existing
> build
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 14:57 -0400, Richard Lowe wrote:
> I think that that looks correct.
>
> That said, you're unlikely to find anyone overly thrilled by the idea
> of rebuilding (all of) SFW, so you may want to check if folks are
> willing to dock a new package and re-import to get the update, o
I think that that looks correct.
That said, you're unlikely to find anyone overly thrilled by the idea
of rebuilding (all of) SFW, so you may want to check if folks are
willing to dock a new package and re-import to get the update, or
whether they'd prefer an oi-build based way to do it, or... wel
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Bayard G. Bell wrote:
> Issue description:
>
> https://www.illumos.org/projects/openindiana/issues/1619
>
> Changeset for review:
>
> https://bitbucket.org/buffyg/oi-sfw-gate/changeset/f9b32046d18a
>
> As this is sfw-gate, some further tidying will be r
Issue description:
https://www.illumos.org/projects/openindiana/issues/1619
Changeset for review:
https://bitbucket.org/buffyg/oi-sfw-gate/changeset/f9b32046d18a
As this is sfw-gate, some further tidying will be required to prep the
change for deployment with IPS. This changeset indicates how t
