Hi Sarah,
On 04/21/09 22:49, Sarah Jelinek wrote: > jan damborsky wrote: >> >> >> On 04/21/09 14:59, Sarah Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> 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. ok. Thanks. >> >>> >>> 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. Sure. I have added that comment. I have updated the webrev accordingly. Thanks ! Jan
