jan damborsky wrote: > 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 > Looks fine. Thank you,
sarah
