[csw-maintainers] cannot upload update of class action script texhash package

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Bliziński" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> 2013/2/19 pfelecan <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
>> Well, running checkpkg doesn't grok:
>>
>> ~/opencsw/.buildsys/v2/bin/checkpkg --os-releases=SunOS5.10,SunOS5.11
>> --architecture=all
>> ~/staging/build-19.Feb.2013/cas_texhash-1.49\,REV\=2013.02.19-SunOS5.10-all-CSW.pkg.gz
>>
>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>   File "/home/pfelecan/opencsw/.buildsys/v2/bin/checkpkg", line 197, in
>> <module>
>>     main()
>>   File "/home/pfelecan/opencsw/.buildsys/v2/bin/checkpkg", line 106, in main
>>     raise UsageError(" ".join(err_msg_list))
>> __main__.UsageError: Valid --architecture values are: ['sparc', 'i386'], you
>> passed: 'all'
>>
>> Yes, showing how to use checkpkg in this case is not a luxury...
>
> Not sure what you mean with the luxury. It does tell you how to use
> it, doesn't it? It does tell you what the valid values are. So... you
> see it, and it's not a luxury? I'm not getting it. Anyway...

Yes and no... It tells to use an architecture, BTW using Python
convention and not BNF as is expected from a syntax scheme, but it
doesn't tell that's about catalogs and not the nature of the package;
IMHO, the argument should be --catalog-architecture.

Finally, when I'm writing "luxury" I think to what was suggested by Dag,
i.e. when using only the "packaging" target on a system which has
checkpkg activated showing what should be the checkpkg stanza; and this
is not a luxury but a necessity as we have seen.

> The --architecture flag is not about your package. It's about the
> catalog you want to check your package against. We do not have an
> 'all' catalog. When you have an 'all' package, you want to either
> check it against the sparc, or against the intel catalog. If the
> quoted above message from checkpkg wasn't clear, what would a clear
> message look like?

When I understand the implicit it becomes clear as it must be and I
thank you.
-- 
Peter