On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:46:01PM -0500, Kyle McDonald wrote: > The S10 update however, I have had to use, as my finish scripts have needed > to change for didfferent updates: > > 1) SMF appeared in an update release if I recall correctly. ZFS did too, > but I don't think that mattered to me (yet - ZFS boot will.)
SMF was in S10 FCS, but yes, ZFS came into an update. But you shouldn't be keying off of the build number, you should be keying off of the presence or absence of the feature you care about. There may or may not be an interface (or a sufficiently public one) for any given feature you might care about, but that's generally solvable by filing an RFE (in most cases, I'd imagine that providing such an interface wouldn't be a big issue, and a low amount of effort). > To add to this, I would *love* it if 'uname' or something similiar could > just have an executable way to provide this info. Again, this is very much the wrong test. > I'm sure there's a reason, but I've always wondered why uname -r doesn't > return 5.10.4 for S10u4. It's not a micro release. It's an accumulation of patches. Indeed, it's a non-linear accumulation of patches, so mapping a feature test onto a linear number is decidedly not going to work. > It seems I can't stop talking to myself. ;) It's okay. Now we know you're crazy. ;-) > Especially since installing pkgs from network IPS repositories will > probalby make it impossible for me to peek inside the SUNWsolnm package :) True, but you'll still be able to discover package names, path names, and possibly more, depending on what we end up Committing to. Danek
