Evan, Sounds fine. I don't feel strongly about it.
John On 03/16/10 01:40 PM, Evan Layton wrote: > On 3/16/10 2:26 PM, John Fischer wrote: >> Evan, >> >> I think that this is fine but.... There's always a but isn't there? >> >> But I think it hides what is being done in the system() call within >> be_activate.c. A better location to add the -f flag would be to >> the snprint() statements within be_activate.c that uses the >> BE_INSTALL_GRUB macro. This will allow someone to see that the >> installgrub command is using the -f option where it is being >> used. > > Hi John, > > I would much rather just have in the header file where we define > BE_INSTALL_GRUB. I don't see that it hides what is being done on > the system since you still have to look at BE_INSTALL_GRUB in the > header file to see that it actually is calling installgrub anyway. > Also we want to make sure that the -f is always called with > installgrub and placing it in the header file this way insures this. > Unless you feel strongly about this I would prefer to leave this in > the header file. > > Thanks! > -evan > >> >> Thanks, >> >> John >> >> On 03/16/10 12:37 PM, Evan Layton wrote: >>> I need a quick code review for the _really_ simple fix for stopper bug >>> 15152. >>> >>> Bug: >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=15152 >>> >>> Webrev: >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/15152/ >>> >>> Testing was done using the updated version of installgrub inside an >>> extended partition for installation, beadm activate and pkg >>> image-update. This was also tested in a normal partition and it worked >>> correctly. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> -evan >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >
