[email protected] wrote:
If you are now adding the drivers with "comma" minor perms entries
back into the base device file, shouldn't those entries be commented
out of the IPS files that they appear in?
For example:
$(sparc_ONLY)add driver name=su \
$(sparc_ONLY) perms="[a-z] 0666 root sys" \
$(sparc_ONLY) perms="[a-z],cu 0600 uucp uucp" \
$(sparc_ONLY) perms="ssp 0600 root sys" \
$(sparc_ONLY) perms="sspctl 0600 root sys
in .../125/common/SUNWcakr ?
We still want to have the driver actions be fully specified in the
manifests.
But by putting the entries in the base files, we can work-around the
failure of the earlier versions of add_drv(1M). At some point in
future, we can decide that building images prior to build 125 is not
supported and then the base files can be shrunk further.
I was thinking more of the case of avoiding seeing things like:
driver (devinfo) install failed with return code 1
command run was: /usr/sbin/add_drv -n -b
/export/home/pkg-solaris/drivers_image -m devinfo 0640 root
sys,devinfo,ro 0444 root sys devinfo
command output was:
------------------------------------------------------------
Option (-m) : missing token: (devinfo)
Usage:
add_drv [ -m '<permission> ','<...>' ]
[ -n ]
[ -f ]
[ -v ]
[ -i '<identify_name <...>' ]
[ -b <basedir> ]
[ -c <class_name> ]
[ -p <dev_policy> ]
<driver_module>
Example:
add_drv -m '* 0666 bin bin' -i 'acme,sd new,sd' sd
Add 'sd' drive with identify names: acme,sd and new,sd.
Every minor node will have the permission 0666,
and be owned by bin with group bin.
which might confuse the user.
If you've got the entries in the base file, do you still have to
have the driver actions?
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
