Hi Dave,

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009, Dave Miner wrote:

> Caimaniacs,
>
> Please review the fixes for
>
> 6440 Build 106 installer fails to start in 512 MB environment
> 7975 LiveCD still has old branding - desktop background - in B111
>
> (I've dispensed with links to the above here as the recent webrev updates 
> now include d.o.o linkage in the webrev).
>
> webrev for which may be found at:
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dminer/slim_6440/
>
> This has been tested extensively on x86, both in live CD and x86 AI 
> installations, including in domU's (thanks to John Levon).  I'm still in the 
> process of testing SPARC, but since it's supposed to be a no-op for SPARC, 
> do not anticipate issues.

DC_defs.py: lines 141-146: I think the following might
read a little better -

BR_NAME_SPARC = "boot_archive"
BR_NAME_I386 = "x86.microroot"
BR_BASEPATH = "/boot"
BR_FILENAME_SPARC = ..
..

all_lang_slim_cd_x86.xml: line 354: Would "Boot root
archiving (64-bit)" be a better message?

slim_cd_x86.xml: line 347: Same as above.

slimcd_generic_live.xml: line 137: Why this change?

slimcd_pre_bootroot_pkg_image_mod: lines 130-139: Why
remove this? It seems that it's only a matter of time
before the microroot grows again and so we'll back to
looking for ways like these to curtail the size of the
microroot.

bootroot_archive.py: line 252: s/archive/type

bootroot_archive.py: line 253: It seems that now that
we're passing the architecture type as an argument, it
would be cleaner to specify "sparc" from the sparc xml
rather than doing this check.

bootroot_archive.py: lines 267-270: What cases does this
catch that aren't caught by the lines directly above?

bootroot_strip: line 35, 47: The bootroot_archive script
uses ARCHIVE_MACH whereas this script uses KERNEL_ARCH. Use
one or the other across scripts might be cleaner.

bootroot_strip: line 56: Variable unused

ict.py: line 1913: Mostly for my curiosity, will "bootadm
update-archive" still be called on boot_archive so it gets
appropriately updated?

---

Seems like we should capture the suggestion about reducing
the number of inodes to reduce memory corruption from the
bug report into a separate bug report that can be investigated
post 2009.06.

Alok


Reply via email to