Karen Tung wrote: > 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 Funny. I just was doing this and found the same. So, I'll push what my changes show and open a bug to change the microroot name.
Jean
