Sarah Jelinek wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: >> Sarah Jelinek wrote: >>> Dave Miner wrote: >>>> Joseph J. VLcek wrote: >>>>> jan damborsky wrote: >>>>>> Hi Joe, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 04/14/09 13:39, Joseph J. VLcek wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am POC this week. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just added 2 new bugs to the 2009.1H stopper list. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 8115 came in listed as P3/enhancement but should be investigated. >>>>>>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=8115 >>>>>> >>>>>> Looking at this issue, it seems that it occurs in scenario >>>>>> when ISC DHCP server is used instead of Sun DHCP server. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that in order to determine if 8115 is stopper for >>>>>> 2009.06, we might need to clarify if/how that scenario is >>>>>> supported for 2009.06 release. >>>>>> >>>>>> As support for ISC DHCP is not on the task list for 2009.06 >>>>>> and installadm(1M) tools don't cope with ISC DHCP server >>>>>> yet, I think that these bugs/enhancements are not stoppers. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>> Thank you Jan. >>>>> >>>>> I set this as a stopper to be on the safe side. Let's plan to >>>>> discuss it in bug court today. >>>>> >>>>> I agree, the question we need to answer regarding 8115 is if we >>>>> fully support ISC DHCP for 2009.06. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No discussion is necessary. The requested change is in code in ON, >>>> and would not be approved for a respin given that there is a >>>> trivial workaround in the ISC server, which is a secondarily >>>> supported server, not the primary one, as Jan noted. Ergo, not a >>>> blocker. >>> Hi Dave, >>> >>> What is the bug id of the ON changes? I just want to understand the >>> issue. >>> >> >> There isn't one, but that's where this would need to go (either there >> or in the OBP - not clear to me exactly). We don't have any control >> over the requested options in our code. > Ah ok.. I misunderstood. I thought you meant the changes were "in", > meaning they were delivered. thanks.
Sundar had noted that the fix for 6820873 would make it possible for the install program to get this value from wanboot since it apparently does request root-path from the ISC server. Can someone explain what the workaround is, or just add it to the bug report. I sped read through it so may have missed it if its already there. thanks, -ethan
