[csw-maintainers] checkpkg problem under Solaris 11 ?

[Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński]

2012/5/26 Yann Rouillard <yann at pleiades.fr.eu.org>:
> I suppose it would be better to read directly from IPS and avoid an
> additional conversion step.

Sure.

> We can extract the same kind of informations from IPS using the following
> command:
>
>     pkg contents -o path,action.name,mode,owner,group,pkg.name -t
> dir,file,hardlink,link
>
> (however this interface is not guaranteed to be stable)

Once we have the code in place, updating it would probably not be hard.

> I can try to work on that but I have several questions:
>
>  - the package name does have the same format (ex: SUNWbzip ->
> compress/bzip2). Can it lead to some problem ?

Can you rephrase the question? Which package name has the same format
as which package name?

> At least the opencsw.PkgnameToCatName seems to work for svr4 package name
> only.

I'm guessing that IPS doesn't introduce the pkgname vs catalogname
distinction. As far as indexing of the system files, we can use bogus
Solaris package names, e.g. by appending SUNW in front and replacing
underscores with dashes.

>  - reading at the code
> ( http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/browser/csw/mgar/gar/v2/lib/python/system_pkgmap.py#L470 )
> it seems that, in each /var/sadm/install/contents line, only f_path is
> really important, but you also save the raw line. Is raw line information
> used elsewhere ?

The raw information is there for debugging purposes only. I can't
guarantee that no code depends on it though; you could grep our code
for f_path and see. As far as design goes - the raw line is not
intended to be used.

Maciej