illumos-gate: alternate way to handle /32 packages

[Bill-Sommerfeld]

No description provided.

[mtelka]

This change is not needed now because the illumos-gate component builds okay. I propose to postpone the merge until the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 gets fixed upstream. After the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 fix upstream we will very likely need to do something here anyway, so better to do it once instead of twice, I think.

[Bill-Sommerfeld]

This change is not needed now because the illumos-gate component builds okay. I propose to postpone the merge until the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 gets fixed upstream.

I was hoping that this would integrate here sooner so I could point to it as part of the testing for https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 when I file the RTI.

After the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 fix upstream we will very likely need to do something here anyway, so better to do it once instead of twice, I think.

Once 16879 lands upstream it should be sufficient to delete 0009-bug16879.patch

[mtelka]

This change is not needed now because the illumos-gate component builds okay. I propose to postpone the merge until the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 gets fixed upstream.

I was hoping that this would integrate here sooner so I could point to it as part of the testing for https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 when I file the RTI.

Interesting idea. But for materialize that you would need to wait for the next illumos-gate rebuild. It is unclear when it will happen. Anyway, your local nightly should be more than enough for the RTI.

After the https://www.illumos.org/issues/16879 fix upstream we will very likely need to do something here anyway, so better to do it once instead of twice, I think.

Once 16879 lands upstream it should be sufficient to delete 0009-bug16879.patch

Yes. Provided it lands in the shape as it is currently proposed.