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.
Indeed but as far as I can tell, that particular issue is unavoidable without back-publishing the fixed add_drv(1M) (which I'm not comfortable doing.) Hence, we'll need to release note this (as well as the warnings about no entry for certain drivers appearing in /<some mount point>/etc/minor_perm).
If you've got the entries in the base file, do you still have to have the driver actions?
Unless they're specified in the driver action, then from an IPS system the driver's specification is incomplete. _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
