On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 04:13:08PM -0800, Jyri Virkki wrote:
> - Not that I really care, but to clarify the process: It has been
> asserted that the requirement is that putback comments must be of the
> form "$CRNUM $CRSYNOPSIS". So the comment "PSARC 2007/617 p7zip 4.55"
> does not match required pattern. (Of course I'd rather see rich
> meaningful putback comments that actually help sustaining in the
> future.. but that's a separate discussion.)
Mike said today in c-team that he didn't care one way or another. As ex-ON
gatekeeper, I like having the info there, since it's then simple to see
from various places that the putback was more than just a bugfix. I don't
particularly care if it's enforced, but I'd like to do it for the bits I
integrate.
> usr/src/cmd/p7zip/Makefile.sfw:
>
> - I'm always wary of "@find . -name core -exec rm -f {} \;"
> Is it really dumping core during builds? If yes, why?
No; that's just a copy from other makefiles -- 46 of the 64 components seem
to do that right now. I'm not sure what the original rationale was, but if
Mike doesn't care too much, I can remove this.
> usr/src/cmd/p7zip/patch:
>
> - I'd favor a more descriptive name than "patch" for each patch. I know
> there's just one here, but on the off chance there is another in some
> future, it'll be annoying.
Good suggestion -- I've renamed this to plugindir.diff.
Thanks,
Danek
