Keyur Desai writes: > > In that case, I'd recommend paring down the information (particularly > > about the exit codes) so that it's clear that the intended > > administrative interface is SMF. > > The exit codes in nbtd(1M) are the same as those in smbd(1M), which was > recommended when smbd(1M) was reviewed during the CIFS server case. > (PSARC/2006/715)
The issue is whether or not users should be looking at those codes, not whether they're similar to or the same as something that may or may not have been reviewed in some other case. If users don't invoke the daemon, and aren't expected to use the exit codes, then they're private implementation details, and ought not be exposed on a man page. Otherwise, you'll likely get called out if you ever need to change them. Honestly, it's a nit, and I don't much care if you fix it, but I'm surprised at the amount of discussion it generated. > We will raise CRs against smbd(1M) and smb(4) manpage, to include > references to nbtd(1M) and nmb(4) manpage. OK. > The diffs in the smbd(1M) manpage, listed in the fasttrack, calls out > for addition of nbtd(1M) and nmb(4) in the SEE ALSO section. The question was where users would go looking; it sounds like you've got that answer. > > (Not that I care much, but "nbtd" is a pretty obscure name for the > > service. "nbt" would be better, and just plain "netbios" would > > probably be even better still ... though I realize it doesn't provide > > _all_ of NetBIOS.) > > > > The service is named as "nbt" i.e. SMF service with an FMRI of > "svc:/network/nbt:default". (No preference here. We could call the > service "netbios") "nbt:default" seems fine. (In case it comes up, I don't have any more questions. I'm on vacation starting ... now.) -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
