I thought part of this proposal was to deprecate the use of this file.
As Erik points out it is documented today in nodename(4), and has been
around a really long time. I would think that we would file an ARC case
to EOL this interface along with this proposal. If we are keeping it
around, I think the read-only option is a good choice. but, I think even
if we do this, EOL'ing this as a writeable interface needs to be done.
thanks,
sarah
*****
On 05/10/10 06:21 AM, John Fischer wrote:
Erik,
Thanks!! You are not the first one to ask about /etc/nodename
and scripts. I think that we should probably kept it around in
some form too.
Thanks,
John
On 05/10/10 05:08 AM, Erik Nordmark wrote:
On 05/ 6/10 03:17 PM, John Fischer wrote:
All,
Attached is the first revision of the System Configuration SMF service
nodename
design document.
Comments/Questions welcomed.
We currently document the existence of /etc/nodename in nodename(4).
Thus it wouldn't be unreasonable for a customer to have developed
scripts which write the nodename to /etc/nodename instead of using
uname -S.
What happens if such scripts are run in the new world?
Would it be helpful to provide a read-only /etc/nodename which
contains just a comment along the lines of:
# This file has been obsoleted. Use uname(1m) to set and get the
nodename
That way such a script would at least fail, instead of silently
continuing without updating the nodename.
Erik
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
_______________________________________________
caiman-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
