Sarah, thank you very much for review.
Jan On 04/22/09 14:48, Sarah Jelinek wrote: > 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
