Jean McCormack wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: >>> The use of virtual console was considered as a possibility if a more >>> detailed progress >>> is required. Preliminary investigation indicates that this currently >>> is not in our microroot and would >>> be too large to include there. >>> >> Umm, please say more. We have long assumed that virtual consoles >> would be a core part of the product when they were ready to go, as >> they are on Linux distros, so I'm quite concerned about this. > So we are back to considering a more detailed progress reported using > the virtual console. >> BTW, it was somewhat implicit in the way you described it, but I'd >> feel better if the explicit statement of a single log was made. I >> would suggest that, if we're not using the SMF service log for this >> (and we should be explicit about why we aren't), then I would expect >> the location of the actual log to be recorded in the service log so >> that there's some way of locating it other than "just knowing". > OK. I'll make a more explicit statement that this log will be the only > log on the client. > I have a question or three. If we make the only log the smf service log, > will the users who have become used to looking in the standard install > log area be confused? Is this even an issue? If so, would creating a sym > link from the historical log file to the smf log file be appropriate? >
IMHO, the "standard install log area" is about as obscure as one could make it, but if leaving links around from there to the SMF location makes it easier for people to adjust, sure... Dave
