Jean McCormack wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: > >> Jean McCormack wrote: >> >> >>> Karen and anyone else please review: >>> >>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~jeanm/slim_sparc/ >>> >>> I believe the appropriate defect is: >>> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=4230 >>> >>> Yes, I'll need to commit with this for the comments. >>> >>> >>> >> DC_defs.py: >> Is there a reason to not just switch to a generic name for the boot >> archive? We're not going to build multiple ISA's into the same image, >> so an ISA-specific name seems unnecessary to retain. >> >> > Is just plain old microroot OK? I thought we needed to keep the ISA > specific name, thus > the change. > > Jean > > While I agree with Dave that we should use a generic name, I think it is better to do it as a separate bug after the SPARC changes are putback. I did a quick search on the slim_source tree, and found that x86.microroot is hard coded in many different places including the libict, installadm as well as different places in DC. Since we want to test all affected components throughly, it would greatly delay on when we putback the SPARC changes.
Thanks, --Karen
