On 03/19/10 03:42 PM, Dave Miner wrote: > On 03/19/10 04:53 AM, Jan Damborsky wrote: >> Hi Dave, >> >> thank you very much for your comments. >> Please see my response in line. >> >> Jan >> >> >> On 03/18/10 11:08 PM, Dave Miner wrote: >>> Hi Jan, >>> >>> Looks generally good, a few small things. >>> >>> If configuring multiple user accounts turns out to be required, how >>> would this be accommodated? Multiple user_account_xx property groups? >> >> To be honest, I initially haven't thought about this possibility, >> but it could be addressed as you propose. >> >> The only issue I could see is that for additional user accounts we >> would not be able to take advantage of fix for bug 6934233. >> Fix for that bug will allow to omit specifying property types in >> SMF profile (and thus in System Configuration manifest) for those >> SMF properties which type is defined in SMF manifest. >> > > Unlike some, I don't regard that as being a particularly difficult > hurdle. > > At the moment I'm not necessarily suggesting you change it, but it's > an easy RFE to anticipate.
I see - then I will capture this in the document as an potential enhancement along with the proposed solution. > >>> >>> What about providing for an alternate path to the user's home >>> directory? >> >> I was not sure if there is a need for this and if there might be a >> potential issue when we would like to provide user with mechanism >> to specify name of ZFS dataset, since home dir is to be created on >> shared >> ZFS dataset and name of target root pool might not be known at the time >> System Configuration manifest is constructed. >> >> If we would like to allow the user only to customize ZFS mountpoint of >> <root_pool>/export/home/<login> ZFS dataset, I think that should be >> fine. >> >> If not specified or set to '' (e.g. in SC portion in default AI >> manifest), >> it would expand to /export/home/<login> as it does today. >> >> Do you think it could cover the user's needs or there might be also need >> to customize name of ZFS dataset ? >> > > I'm not sure we do at all, again I'm mostly asking questions about > RFE's that seem to have some likelihood of appearing. ok - I will apply the same approach as for multiple users scenario - it will be captured in the doc as an potential enhancement along with the way how we might address this. Thanks a lot for your comments, Jan
