Looks okay to me but see below ? paul
Vivek Titarmare wrote: > > Regarding point 2, concurrent was categorized as utility by the legal team. > So this packages goes under utility. okay, but I don't see the difference between this and the ones with 'java_classes' > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Cunningham [mailto:paul.cunningham at tadpole.com] > Vivek Titarmare wrote: >> I have posted a webrev for package "concurrent" which I am porting to >> Nevada and would like to request a code review. Please see the link below >> >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~vivekrt/6835998-concurrent/ ... cut ... > 3. usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWconcurrent/copyright do you need the lines 368 to 556 ? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Cunningham Software Engineer Tadpole Business Unit
