Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Ed, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the questions you had or the things I didn't take, I have responded below. Edward Pilatowicz wrote: - could you propegate back your common changes to the original file? I don't want to complicate this project with the

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Jordan, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the things I didn't take, I have responded below. Jordan Vaughan wrote: usr/src/uts/common/brand/solaris10/s10_brand.c 1260-1261,1286-1287,1313,etc.: Couldn't we make arg1 a zoneid_t, arg2 an int, arg3 a char *, and

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Edward Pilatowicz
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the questions you had or the things I didn't take, I have responded below. Edward Pilatowicz wrote: - could you propegate back your common changes to the

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Peter Memishian
also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common. I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design? -- meem

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Ed, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the questions you had or the things I didn't take, I have responded below. Edward Pilatowicz wrote: - could you propegate back

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Peter Memishian wrote: also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common. I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design?

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Edward Pilatowicz
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the questions you had or the things I didn't take, I have

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Ed, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:15:23PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:47:40AM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Ed, Thanks for reviewing this again. I took most of your input. For the questions you had or the things

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Edward Pilatowicz
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:18:21PM -0600, Jerry Jelinek wrote: Peter Memishian wrote: also, i would have though you'd commited to doing this work when you decided to fork the sn1 brand code instead of making it common. I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Peter Memishian wrote: I was wondering about this too. Indeed, there seems be a sizeable amount of duplicated code now. Why is this the right design? Because the sn1 brand is an internal brand for testing and is not delivered to customers. Once the solaris10 brand is

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Jerry Jelinek
Ed, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: really? i'd have to disagree. i was actually expecting that when nevada dies we'd have to update the sn1 brand to work on opensolaris. i always thought you forked the code because that was faster than re-factoring it to be common. No, that wasn't my thinking,

Re: [zones-discuss] s10 brand Phase I webrev

2009-10-06 Thread Peter Memishian
I don't see how that addresses the primary point, which is that Solaris brands seem to suffer from code duplication. Are you asserting that the amount of code duplication between the sn1 and solaris10 brands is unique to that situation and is not something that will occur again when

Re: [zones-discuss] svnserve

2009-10-06 Thread Trevor Pretty
If it does not come with a manifest for SMF you need to write one. If it does then use it! or just use an rc script. However using the rc scrpt ans making a service run under SMF is not hard. Attached is what I wrote as a demo before postgress got an SMF service by default. Look at "demo 2"

Re: [zones-discuss] svnserve

2009-10-06 Thread Enrico Maria Crisostomo
Hi. I'd also take into account how you plan to configure Subversion. When I'm not needing Apache2 and mod_svn I usually configure it as an inetd service. I blogged about it, you can start here: http://thegreyblog.blogspot.com/search/label/subversion Hope this helps, Enrico On Tue, Oct 6, 2009

Re: [zones-discuss] svnserve

2009-10-06 Thread The Defiant
Wow, Thanks you guys!!! Very informative.. If anyone else has a similar issue they can try this too: http://fred.nomades.info/sysadm/sol10/#svn Cheers -TheDefiant. Message was edited by: defian7 -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___