Hello, I decided to forward this message, as most people seem to ignore the coding related lists. Maybe the subject gives a first clue or indicator, what Oracle plans for the future: Maybe the name 2009.06 stays the current release for a few more weeks. Whatever. It does not matter, because this is only Oracle''s commercial distro. They do work. They give us all src updates. EXCELLENT!!!
For all recent pkg-discuss messages have a look at http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/pkg-discuss/2010-April/date.html But please let''s stop the FUD based discussions. It can only harm the project. If theregister.com or the NYT quotes one of the recent postings, then this kills OpenSolaris before Oracle has any chance (or even INTENTION?????) to do so. It is as if you chatted with a girl and suddenly she stops responding. Maybe she has another one? Maybe she forgot you??? Or maybe she is just ill! If you cannot wait and send her messages, like ^you this and that, go away bitch!^ - well - then she does go way! Then it is certain. Had one not written impatient ranting messages, maybe she would have had a chance to explain she was indeed ill. Or whatever other problem there might have come up. Believe me. So my Vote: Let us wait and be polite and helpful. The day to branch off does not come, before Oracle ever dares to lay-off a substantial number of Sun-engineers (who in turn would be willing to join the brach-off project during their spare time). _everything_ else is counterproductive. %martin ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Danek Duvall <[email protected]> Date: Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:54 PM Subject: Re: [pkg-discuss] [REVIEW] backport-2009.06 fix for 11833 To: Shawn Walker <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Shawn Walker wrote: > >Fixing both is fine, but I don't see how the changes to > >__filter_install_matches() are involved. > > Oh, that's easy. The old code was wrong. You actually fixed several > bugs in how it tried to eliminate multiple matches when you changed > it. Since ambiguous name pairs could result in multiple matches, it > seemed relevant to fix. Did you not realise you fixed something else > too? :) I vaguely remember fixing something in there, but I don't at all remember the details of it. The actual change there, particularly with bits of your catalog v1 change mixed in is pretty subtle. My changeset primarily rewrote that routine to use sets instead of dicts and, IMHO, made it a bit easier to use. But aside from the change to take obsolete packages into account, the only substantive change I made was in the "Next" stanza (starting line 2283 at the time), to always add the package stem to mnames. That same change isn't in your version of the change because the catalog v1 change hadn't happened to make it necessary. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
