On Mon 07 Jul 2008 at 03:17PM, Stephen Hahn wrote:
> * Tom Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-07 21:59]:
> > Stephen Hahn wrote:
> >> "what does set-authority" do to the UUID for a
> >> new authority? The answer for set-authority and image-create should
> >> be the same.
>
> > Yes, that's how it works. An image-create and a set-authority on a new
> > authority without the --reset-uuid option create the uuid as "None".
>
> So, if I've opted-in, my next new authority will be opted out. (I
> then have to "pkg authority --reset-uuid new_authority", right? Don't
> like that much.) I wonder if Dan has a comment on his send/don't send
> idea--maybe the interface simplifies if we always have UUIDs, but
> filter how we send them.
I did post that idea on June 24, although it was not responded to.
I continue to think that users should not need to think about or
be concerned with UUIDs. This is true for e.g. zones, in which we
maintain a UUID for each zone but users don't need to know that. If need be,
users should put their client into "strict privacy" or "allow information
gathering" mode and should think in terms of that. Encoding the notion
of UUID into the interface is not prudent.
-dp
--
Daniel Price - Solaris Kernel Engineering - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - blogs.sun.com/dp
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
