For the server, then it would seem reasonable to document the interface in terms of the SMF properties. Although this does make the the documentation Solaris-specific - I'm not very worried about that for the server though since our primary deployment platform for the server is Solaris.
For the client, I don't see what SMF service would be associated with the image itself, such that the cfg_cache is a cache of SMF properties. So I don't see how the name follows for an image (user or full). Tom Shawn Walker wrote: > Tom Mueller (pkg-discuss) wrote: >> One problem with making this a documented interface is the name of >> the file. The file isn't a "cache" in that it isn't a quicker to >> access copy of data that is found elsewhere. (Same with the >> client-side cfg_cache file, but there we have the pkg(1) command in >> front of it to do the editing.) > > Actually, it will be a cache though on OpenSolaris systems. It is > planned that all of these values will be exposed via SMF and then > cached in cfg_cache; hence the name for both the client and the > server. Look at docs/repository.txt in the gate for an explanation. > _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
