Jack,
>>>>> create-client.sh:
>>>>> 253-259: Seems confusing that -f specified on SPARC
>>>>> without $BOOTFILE is acceptable but with $BOOTFILE is not. Based on
>>>>> 255, looks
>>>>> like -f should always be invalid for SPARC, whether or not BOOTFILE
>>>>> is specified.
>>>>>
>>>> You are correct in that -f is invalid for sparc. If -f is specified,
>>>> the parsing code at 180 verifies that there is a BOOT_FILE specified.
>>>> Thus we know that if we've gotten to 254, the user has specified "-f
>>>> <boot_file>".
>>>>
>>> So the check at 254 for an empty $BOOT_FILE variable isn't needed.
>>>
>>
>> The check on 254 is checking for a non-empty BOOT_FILE to indicate that the
>> user
>> has used the -f option. If it is sparc, they get an error message. I have
>> added
>> a comment to clarify.
>>
> OK, but the clearest thing would be just to modify around 180.
> something like:
>
> -f) BOOT_FILE=$2
> if [ ! "$BOOT_FILE" ] ; then
> usage;
> else if ["${IMAGE_TYPE}" = "${SPARC_IMAGE}" ] then
> echo "${myname}: \"-f\" is an invalid option for SPARC"
> usage;
> endif
>>
That would indeed be nice, but we don't (and aren't able to) know what the
IMAGE_TYPE is at that point. That is why the check is done where it is at 255.
Sue
