ability in SI, in which from the users persective they have a
> >single command to run and not the many that are currently required. At
> >the very least, if something new is going to happen to support multiple
> >networks don't create yet another mkfoo that needs to be run a
n which from the users persective they have a
single command to run and not the many that are currently required. At
the very least, if something new is going to happen to support multiple
networks don't create yet another mkfoo that needs to be run along with
all the others.
-mark
Subject:
he many that are currently required. At
the very least, if something new is going to happen to support multiple
networks don't create yet another mkfoo that needs to be run along with
all the others.
-mark
Subject: Re: [Sisuite-users] Re: bug in systemconfigurator?
From: Brian Elliot
Thus spake Sean Dague ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:44:15PM -0600, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
> > > Ultimately, putting everything in the SIS database seems best.
> > >
> > > I'd prefer adding this data in the autoinstallscript.conf file vs. a
> > > post-install script - we'd
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 04:44:15PM -0600, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
> > Ultimately, putting everything in the SIS database seems best.
> >
> > I'd prefer adding this data in the autoinstallscript.conf file vs. a
> > post-install script - we'd then be able to do it all in one call to SC,
> > and
