James Carlson wrote: > Tim Haley - Sun Microsystem writes: >> I am sponsoring the following fast-track for Keyur Desai. The >> requested binding is micro, timeout 4/22/2008. > > Is "patch/micro" intended? > Argh, no, there is no intent to backport these, that should have been minor. I probably owe someone a Bier(1) for getting this wrong one too many times.
> If so, then what happens when someone with one of the existing systems > gets this new implementation? What does patch installation do? > >> Exported Interfaces >> -------------------- >> - libnbt.so > > Exported how? What stability do these interfaces have? Does anything > use them? (Are they present on any other systems?) > > If these are intended to be something other than "Project Private," > could we have a list of the interfaces in the library? > These are indeed project private, as were the smbd and libsmb interfaces from PSARC/2006/715. Since we did not enumerate in depth the interfaces in that case, we chose to do the same here. We will note that they are project private in the materials, however. >> SYNOPSIS >> /usr/lib/smbsrv/nbtd > > Are users or scripts supposed to interact directly with the binary? > If not, then why document it? > I'll let Keyur confirm, but I don't believe so. It was included for completeness more than anything. > I suspect that this should actually be a Project Private detail, and > that the SMF FMRI is the documented administrative interface. > >> EXIT STATUS >> >> The following exit values are returned: > > Similarly, I don't think these should be public interfaces, unless > there's some clear need for some other part of the system to invoke > the daemon directly. If there is such a need, then that's an > important bit of architecture to discuss. (And, if so, this might not > be a fast-track anymore.) > Again, I'll ask Keyur to respond on details here. >> Use the svcadm command to perform administrative actions on >> the nbtd service, such as enabling, disabling, or restarting >> the service. Use the svcs command to query the service >> status. > > Who enables this? Is the administrator expected to know when to do > this, or does it get enabled automatically when needed (when sharectl > demands it)? > and again here. :-) thanks, -tim
