[illumos-Developer] [REVIEW] 113, 314, 221 nightly should not call "pkg info" & packaging nits

[Garrett D'Amore]

Looks good, although I'd like to know where the list of "categories"
that are acceptable comes from.

	- Garrett

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 12:54 -0400, Richard Lowe wrote:
> I'd like review of:
>     113 nightly should not call "pkg info"
>     214 various packages list invalid classification scheme
>     221 SVR4 package vendor should be "Illumos"
> 
> Webrev: http://richlowe.net/webrevs/il-pkg/
> 
> This just removes the version check of nightly, some people don't like
> it not being packaging agnostic, but also it's never in my experience
> proved particularly useful (the failure mode has been the clue that
> nightly was outdated, not the version stamp).  I'd note that several
> other woefully outdated version checks in nightly somewhat bare this out
> (see, for instance, the check of linker version).
> 
> The packaging changes are somewhat obvious nits, as described in the
> bug.
> 
> I've tested nightly with an incremental build (to build the other two
> fixes), the legacy information via installing osnet-redistributable and
> checking the VENDOR information in /var/sadm/pkg/*/pkginfo*, and the
> classifications by running the PM over a BE pointing to my packages, and
> checking that the problems described don't occur.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Rich