Evgeny, Comments, some code review, some architecture related, and some unsolicited advice :-)
-> ant is already in SFWNV - it may be good to check if you can just leverage that. I see that sfw has 1.6.5 (and you're planning on 1.7.1). It'll be nice to investigate if we can avoid having multiple copies of ant on the file system. -> The Netbeans folk had an ARC case for Netbeans JRuby support a few months ago. Are you in synch with them? If not, then we're probably going to have 2 versions of JRuby in SFWNV. -> /usr file system is not a good place for the gem_home since administrators in sparse root zones will not be able to use it. We chose /var in the Ruby (MRI) ARC case. -> I see that you're bundling Rubygems and the rake gem. We ran into issues with this - the main issue being the dual ownership of gems. ie., Solaris packages and the gem system own the same bits, and so at any given time you're never sure what exactly your package contents are. Look through the webstack-discuss archives for details (we really beat this topic to death, and then some more on that mailing list). Amanda Waite is looking into an 'enlightened' hierarchical way of doing this now, which makes some assumptions, but could be workable. It'll be good to get in touch with her. -> It's probably not a good idea to bundle Rubygems and JRuby in the same package, since, sometimes user level programs depend on a specific Rubygems version(like the current version of Rails), and if you don't have a versioned Rubygems package, then your users will have no way to pick an updated version of Rubygems that you may put up on pkg.opensolaris.org. An alternate solution may be to have some sort of composite versioning for your package that takes into account the rev number of both Rubygems and JRuby. -> The sunman-stability file usually says that the sources for XYZ are available at http://opensolaris.org. I believe that that is the case since we may, at times, deliver code that has third party patches or just code that has not made it upstream(and hence deliver a different code base with sfwnv than what's in the community). So if that's the case with you, this line may be worth changing(Mike Sullivan may be able to comment on this more.) Hope that helps -ps On 09/ 9/08 06:58 AM, Evgeny Bessonov wrote: > Paul, thanks a lot for your review. > > Since there is a requirement of at least two code reviewers > do somebody else has a few minutes for code review of SUNWjruby? > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jinb/jruby3/ > > Thanks a lot. > With best regards. > Evgeny > > > Paul Cunningham wrote: > > >> Evgeny, >> >> Evgeny Bessonov wrote: >> >> >>> thank you very much for explanations. >>> >>> I removed rm/mkdir, edited/moved back DESC >>> and set 444 permissions for files. >>> >>> Updated version of JRuby webrev available here: >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jinb/jruby3/ >>> >> This looks okay to me now >> >> Paul >> > > _______________________________________________ > sfwnv-discuss mailing list > sfwnv-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/sfwnv-discuss > -- Prashant Srinivasan F/OSS Enthusiast Sun Microsystems, Inc. http://blogs.sun.com/prashant GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x82FBDE5A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/sfwnv-discuss/attachments/20080909/723bdeb8/attachment.html>
