Cool. This case wasn't submitted in time for today's meeting, but
unless someone raises another issue between now and then, I expect this
case to auto-approve on its timeout on Feb. 12.
-- Garrett
James C. McPherson wrote:
> James Carlson wrote:
>> James C. McPherson writes:
>>> Since it is expected that arcmsr would provide attachment to a
>>> bootable OS target, I want to provide a buffer so that a system
>>> admin keen on minimisation would not inadvertently remove the
>>> driver supply access to their OS instance.
>>
>> That's an argument for putting the new package into SUNWCmreq, not an
>> argument for putting the binaries into an existing package.
>
> Yep, I agree totally.
>
>>> I'm not particularly wedded to one or the other choices for the
>>> package, and I would like to canvass the opinions of the wider
>>> community on this issue.
>>
>> Unless there's a clear reason why *every* system, including those
>> without the corresponding hardware, must have this driver, I'd suggest
>> a separate package.
>
> I'll put it into a separate package, but request that the
> package be part of SUNWCmreq.
>
>
> Thankyou,
> James C. McPherson
> --
> Senior Kernel Software Engineer, Solaris
> Sun Microsystems
> http://blogs.sun.com/jmcp http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
