On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 03:14:03PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > > I'm not entirely sure what I can rely on. The problem is that any > > changes made to i.services means testing upgrade from S9 (and whoever > > backports, if anyone does, would have to test upgrade from S8). Ouch. > > It's a safe bet that anything in SUNWCmreq and that's been there since > at least Solaris 2.6 (oldest I have easy access to -- and doesn't have > mreq but does have req) and that's in common use among other package > class action scripts is ok to use. nawk fits that bill.
Good to know. > > I'd much rather do John Levon's suggestion than optimize i.services. > > It's an awfully trivial script. Of course it is. I know from experience that class action scripts are usually trivial to write, but take a lot of effort to test (and then you have to fix bugs you find in any one test, lather, rinse, repeat). I am with the IPS folks on this: class action scripting sucks. It's deceptively simple until you try it. > > OTOH, upgrade to SXCE/SXDE/any Nevada build is simply not supported. > > And likely never will be. (Technically upgrades between Nevada builds > > and SX* releases are not supported either, right?) > > Not supported but not expected to fail or behave poorly. We've > consistently treated upgrade failures in this area as _bugs_ -- ask > Mary Ding if you need confirmation on that. Right. But how do we deal with perf regressions? I'll ask Mary. > [...] > > This is different from > > ipnodes, I think. The primary benefit would be that we'd commit to > > shipping the IANA registrations in a non-editable file, so you could > > rely on that contents, but you could still overwrite it. OTOH, yes, it > > does seem a bit odd. There are three name services databases where we > > could follow this tack: protocols, services and rpc. Of these only > > /etc/services is often modified, I doubt anyone ever needs to modify > > /etc/protocols, and we're the registry for ONC RPC programs. > > In terms of the familiarity bugaboo, we'd be driving in the opposite > direction on that one. > > I get why you want to do it; that much is clear. I'm not sure about > the lasting benefit. I'm not sure that I want to do that either. It'd be easier to test, definitely, but that's about it. _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
