>> > As I am not familar with the miniroot build process per se ( SUNWsibi > was news to me ), I'm not in a position to comment as such on the > brokeness of the miniroot build process. > > But I do know that customers ( and this thread is from a customer ) > patch miniroot's, in order to gain driver support and so on. > Now in S10 the files that SUNWsibi delivers that conflict with genric > patchehs all appear to be svc related, for boot purposes, in S9 and > earlier I suspect that somehow these conflicts did not arrise. I was wondering if there are any other reasons customers patch the miniroot besides driver updates. Obviously they get other updates with the patches they are using, but I believe in general it is used for device updates, correct? If so, does the ITU process that we offer during install not suffice for this? In particular if this feature was enhanced to be more usable and more automated and could find drivers without user intervention?
I am not suggesting the miniroot doesn't need work, and certainly the SUNWsibi pkging issues need to be fixed, but we it seems the more general, current issue of patching the miniroot with any patch might be solved if users knew how to use the ITU mechanism. I haven't used it myself so I am not sure of the ease of use of this feature. Patchadd -C was never intended to for use with any patch, only those that are supposed to be miniroot safe. Unfortunately, it doesn't stop users from adding *any* patch(which maybe it should), therefore giving them a false sense of security about what they are doing. thanks, sarah
