There are several packages SUWsf* packages currently: man, doc, info, headers. These were created to satisfy intenal audits; e.g. RE, install.
Sounds like policy to put on the list of those that need to be revised. marilyn Stephen Hahn wrote: >* Laszlo (Laca) Peter <laca at sun.com> [2006-12-14 11:12]: > > >>Let me open a can of worms, or a couple of them (: >> >>On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 07:55 -0800, Dermot McCluskey wrote: >> >> >>> Package Names >>> ============= >>> SUNWbison (unchanged) Committed >>> >>> >>> SUNWbisonS (unchanged) Committed >>> >>> >>I suspect that the purpose of the SFW source packages was to satisfy >>the GPL requirement of publishing the changed sources and build >>environment. Is that still relevant now that everything is published >>on opensolaris.org? >> >> > > I am trying to get the current policy reexplained because I, too, > think it needs changing. > > > >>> SUNWsfman (unchanged) Committed >>> SUNWsfinf (unchanged) Committed >>> >>> >>Again, I know this has been like that since the dawn of SFW, and it >>was obviously modeled from SUNWman. But I would argue that >>if we create separate Solaris packages for each GNU package, then the >>place of the manual pages is in those packages, together with the >>artifacts that they describe. Same goes for info docs. >> >> > > Yes, I think I agree with this, too. The bundle-up-similar-items > packaging algorithm appears to have more drawbacks than advantages. > > - Stephen > > >
