UNIX admin writes: > > However, for stuff that's integrated in OpenSolaris > > -- and especially > > things in ON -- that's incorrect. We intentionally > > use explicit > > directory definitions on the foundation packages -- > > and SUNWdmfe is > > one of those. > > I can well understand that. Although, you are aware of the fact that, the > more packages set perms explicitly, the higher the chance that one of those > will set them incorrectly?
Of course. That's why the build process checks those (see checkproto and protocmp). > That's just statistics. Or do all your developers, bar none, know exactly at > all times what the perms are supposed to be? If that's the case, you've got > some seriously disciplined development, and that's something to admire. Thanks. > > > e none kernel/drv/dmfe.conf 0644 root sys > > > > Possibly. Though the thought of people hacking away > > at driver.conf > > files is traumatizing. > > Technically speaking, any files that is meant to be edited (.cf .conf and so > on), should be "editable". Agreed. The quibble is with "meant to." Using driver.conf as a configuration mechanism is a bit on the lame side, and this is something we're aiming to fix in the near future. Thus, it's less of an issue. > Although since `pkgchk` still complains when they do get edited, I'm not > quite sure what "e" actually tells the software subsystem. Not as much as it should. ;-} > Anyways, sometimes you have to edit those /kernel/drv/*.conf files, > especially for fiber channel controllers! That's alright; that's what they're > there for. > Personally I would not manually go and hack away at a .conf file, but roll > out a modified package, but that's me, I don't do anything ad-hoc. There are clearly better ways to manage this, which is why (in general) we're driving away from those files. > > > Third thing to consider is parametrizing. Instead > > of setting "root sys" explicitly in the prototype > > file, consider defining something like > > > > Please don't. It'll break the packaging consistency > > checks. > > That's really a shame, since one loses all teh advantages of parametrization. > No chance of adapting the checks? Sure ... if you want to roll that into the wad as well. I certainly wouldn't recommend it. It seems like a lot of effort (and added text) for pretty much zero gain. (And perhaps some net loss in clarity.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-code mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
