The project team is not clear on the purpose and direction of Nevada and would deliver into Nevada if it makes sense.
Ron From: Garrett D'Amore > >Eric Sultan wrote: >> This is almost correct. The project doesn't plan to deliver into the >> nevada builds, but if it becomes important to do so, your first point >> would be correct. Your second and third points are correct statements. > >I think it would be best to deliver into Nevada and Indiana at the same >time, and possibly revoke pfb/nfb at the same time. > >Unless there are compelling reasons not to do this? > > -- Garrett >> >> -- Eric >> >> >> Alan Coopersmith wrote: >>> Eric Sultan wrote: >>> >>>> The timer having expired with no unresolved issues, I am marking this >>>> case approved. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry for the late response, but I was travelling last week and am just >>> catching up on e-mail now. >>> >>> Would the following be a correct summary of the final spec? >>> >>> - In the "Nevada" WOS builds (aka SXCE), both the existing drivers (pfb >>> & nfb) and the new driver (efb) will be delivered. Which is loaded >>> depends on the ordering in /etc/driver_aliases, which is controlled >>> by package installation order, and thus will be random depending on >>> installation method & WOS media layout for the build in question. >>> All users of XVR-100 & XVR-300 cards on Nevada will thus be responsible >>> for knowing which driver is for Xsun vs. Xorg and manually pkgrm'ing >>> the driver they don't want after each OS install/upgrade. How will >>> SXCE & internal Nevada users be informed of this flag day/installation >>> requirement? >>> >>> - In the "Indiana" WOS builds (aka OpenSolaris), only efb will be delivered, >>> and pfb & nfb will not be. >>> >>> - There are no plans to backport this to prior Solaris releases, such as >>> Solaris 10, and if those plans are ever made in the future, a new ARC >>> case will be brought forward then to figure out the additional complications >>> of this model in the patch & update release world.
