On 11/13/08 14:19, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Gary Winiger wrote: >>> I'll ask the project team to revise the proposal this way. >>> >>> Does everyone agree this is the right approach? >> >> No, not without the answers to the various questions >> posed in the followup to Darren's mail. >> >> Of course, the committee can just tell me to shutup. >> When I asked at the meeting, that wasn't the response >> I got. > > I think this case should be marked as waiting need spec. I STRONGLY > STRONGLY encourage the project team to work with either or both of > Gary and I offline before a new spec is produced. I believe Gary has > already offered his help and should be the first point of contact but > if my timezone is better for the project team I'm happy to be the second. > Gary, I don't think you should be told to shut up.
All, I'm interested in this from a far more general position. It didn't seem to me that the sg3 utilities did any more than access the device via its name in the file system. Access to this device shouldn't need to be controlled by the utility, as any program can also attempt to open the device, and send the appropriate commands to get the actions desired. If that is the case, isn't the permissions to access the device provided by Solaris adequate? If that is not the case, I'll continue watching this thread with interest. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rick Matthews email: Rick.Matthews at sun.com Sun Microsystems, Inc. phone:+1(651) 554-1518 1270 Eagan Industrial Road phone(internal): 54418 Suite 160 fax: +1(651) 554-1540 Eagan, MN 55121-1231 USA main: +1(651) 554-1500 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
