From rmottola at opencsw.org Thu Nov 1 00:12:01 2018 From: rmottola at opencsw.org (Riccardo Mottola) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 00:12:01 +0100 Subject: Issue with non-existing package In-Reply-To: <20181018074405.zh325xjppiasrkut@durian.home.blizinski.pl> References:

<36ecf2c2-1926-b863-a96f-a3b6f9d6140f@opencsw.org> <20181018074405.zh325xjppiasrkut@durian.home.blizinski.pl> Message-ID: Hi, Maciej Blizi?ski wrote: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 01:21:05AM +0200, Riccardo Mottola wrote: >> it says CSWPerformance1 >> >> this happened I think during a renaming where I changed case.. what a mess. >> >> Maybe I should just rebuild and reissue the package and see if it helps, >> after reinstalling it? > Normally when we rename packages, we change both the pkgname and the > catalogname. In your case, you want to change the pkgname only, and leave the > catalogname unchanged. I remember us talking about such partial renames in the > past, but I don't remember the details: was this kind of a rename easy, or > problematic (multi-stage). > > If this is a new package, and you don't need to worry about installations of > this package, you can perhaps remove CSWPerformance1, and upload a corrected > package and everything will be fine. If it were a widely used package, the > migration path would have been longer. No, it is not a widely used package... not at least in our tree, there are no dependencies on it (yet) as far as I know. Coud you remove it? can I do it? remove it from where? > Looking at the package metadata[1], I see that the pkgname is CSWPerformance1 on > top, but the pkginfo section shows "CSWperformance". I don't know from the top > of my head where this different might come from. Perhaps a partly rebuilt > package? I think the issue could have been an attempt to rename it.. because of capitalization. I would keep it as is and just accept the latest package as is, if possible. > > Our packaging documentation[2] doesn't explicitly say what is the correct case, but > I think that we generally standardize on CSWfoo (lowercase foo) and avoid CSWFoo > (capitalized Foo). I would rather not change it once again :) :) Riccardo From maciej at opencsw.org Thu Nov 1 12:02:51 2018 From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=28Matchek=29_Blizi=C5=84ski?=) Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2018 11:02:51 +0000 Subject: Issue with non-existing package In-Reply-To: References:

<36ecf2c2-1926-b863-a96f-a3b6f9d6140f@opencsw.org> <20181018074405.zh325xjppiasrkut@durian.home.blizinski.pl> Message-ID: Riccardo Mottola escreveu no dia quarta, 31/10/2018 ?(s) 23:28: > No, it is not a widely used package... not at least in our tree, there > are no dependencies on it (yet) as far as I know. > > Coud you remove it? can I do it? remove it from where? > Use the following command to remove the package: ./lib/python/safe_remove_package.py --os-releases=SunOS5.9,? -c I probably wrote this script, today I remember almost nothing about it, but I guess it checks that removing the package in question will not create dangling dependencies. > > I think the issue could have been an attempt to rename it.. because of > capitalization. > I would keep it as is and just accept the latest package as is, if > possible. > > > > > Our packaging documentation[2] doesn't explicitly say what is the > correct case, but > > I think that we generally standardize on CSWfoo (lowercase foo) and > avoid CSWFoo > > (capitalized Foo). > > I would rather not change it once again :) :) > Don't take decisions out of fear. If it's not correct, make it right! If you run into trouble, we'll look at it together again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: