On Tue, 2010-04-06 at 17:06 +0200, William Schumann wrote: > This new element deserves some scrutiny, since it affects the design > and > configuration of the Automated Installer. There needs to be some > explanation of how this works: under what circumstances the disk is > actually labeled, what is the behavior if the manifest is reused, > what > if an EFI label exists? Suggest that the design changes be floated > in > caiman-discuss by proposing changes (perhaps using an algorithm) and > soliciting input in bugzilla, and afterwards, fix it accordingly. If disk has SMI label, nothing happens - libti label function detects this and skips labeling, if label is corrupted or disk has EFI label - it will be labeled if defined in manifest. So if user choose to label disk and the disk has no SMI label - it will be labeled. If this is not correct, let's discuss. > auto_install.c: > As coded, the Target Instantiation functions should not be called > directly, but through ti_create_target(), and only during the TI > phase. This is presently in perform_slim_install:do_ti() > > ai_manifest.rng: > The new element belongs in the ai_target_device section, since it > pertains to a particular disk target. Provide some brief comments in > the schema, since we are moving to improving documentation within the > schema. Yes, I thought about this but then decided to make a separate element. In principle, of course it refers to ai_target_device section > > To be consistent with other elements in the section, it should be > prefaced with "target_device_". Suggest rather > "target_device_label_disk" so that "label" is an active verb. Should > this be named "...label_if_absent" or something to more closely > reflect > what actually happens or the intended usage of this element? Agree. Thank you very much William.
Alex _______________________________________________ caiman-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
