Evan Layton wrote:
> Joseph J VLcek wrote:
>> 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
>>
>
> There was a sparc issue that I had failed to account for. I've fixed that and
> updated the webrev for that as well.
>
> Thanks,
> -evan
> _______________________________________________
> caiman-discuss mailing list
> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
Evan,
Summary of our phone conversation:
In looking at the webrev I got an idea. Why not create a function which
does both the attempt to open and if that fails then the attempt to
create. What I am envisioning is a open( read|create ) type of thing.
Also the error message, example on line 367, should be reworded since if
the open fails the code attempts to create the file.
Hope this helps. Joe
