Evan Layton wrote:
> Evan Layton wrote:
>> Dave Miner wrote:
>> <...>
>>>>
>>>>> I'd really like to figure out a means of not hard-coding the
>>>>> boilerplate stuff that you have in be_create_menu(), though.
>>>>
>>>> I would to but so far I don't know of anywhere I can grab this
>>>> information from if there isn't already a menu.lst file. Any ideas
>>>> here would be a huge help.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There probably isn't since ict.py also has it hardcoded, and thus we
>>> should invent something so that the results of an initial install and
>>> this recovery are approximately the same. Something like a
>>> menu.preamble that could be copied into place might do the trick.
>>
>> Hi Dave and Joe,
>>
>> What I have right now is a call to system() that calls the ict to fill
>> in the menu.lst. Then I fill in the BE entries and figure out which BE
>> is the currently active BE and use system("bootadm set-menu
>> default=%d") based on which be is currently active. This results in a
>> rebuilt menu.lst that appears to be accurate. However this does
>> require that I call the ict to create the initial menu.lst file with
>> the first three lines which still leaves us with the hard coded lines
>> in ict.py. Should we place this menu.preamble file someplace and then
>> use it for both libbe and ict.py?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -evan
>>
>
> I neglect to mention that I updated the webrev with the changes so far
> to use as a reference...
>
> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~evanl/5221/
>
> -evan
>
I think, since ICT is the single point of access to this info, having a
menu.preamble file is less important.
If BE uses ICT and it is felt the menu.preamble is needed then the only
code that would need to change is ICT.
So I think Evan should move forward with this implementation. If others
feel a menu.preamble has benefits then let's file a bug against ICT to
use the menu.preamble.
Evan I noticed you took this off caiman-discuss. Guessing that was by
accident. I'm sending it back out to c-d.
Joe
