jan damborsky wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > thank you very much for your comments. > Please see my response in line. > I have updated webrev accordingly. > > Thanks again ! > Jan > > > On 04/21/09 14:59, Sarah Jelinek wrote: >> hi Jan, >> >> A few comments/questions: >> >> setup-sparc.sh: >> >> line 242: Would we ever have case where the service name isn't >> specified in install.conf? Seems like this check is unnecessary.
> > You are right that it shouldn't happen during normal > working conditions. I have removed the check. > Hi Jan, Thanks. >> >> line 247: This might be better worded something like: >> >> "To enable $svc_name for Sparc clients not explicitly associated with >> another Sparc service you must override the system >> /etc/netboot/wanboot.conf as follows:" > > I agree that original wording deserves modification. > Looking at Joe's comments, he is suggesting slightly different wording: > > echo "To select service $svc_name for those SPARC clients" \ > "use the following commands:" > > This one is shorter, so I might prefer it, but please let me know > if it might be acceptable. Ok, this sounds ok to me. > >> >> setup-service.sh: >> line 281: How is this checking to see if the >> /etc/netboot/wanboot.conf file refers to the specific wanboot.conf of >> the service we are deleting? > > If service referred by /etc/netboot/wanboot.conf was deleted, > then symbolic link points to non-existent target. > Check on line 281 deletes that stale link. > Could you add a comment that states something like: "We know this file is a symbolic link. If this check fails, it means that the target of the link no longer exists, we must remove the link". Just so people are clear that this check follows through to the link, we know it is a a symbolic link, thus we are using the side effect of the follow in the [ !-f...] check to validate the link. thanks, sarah
