Enda O'Connor wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Chris Ridd wrote:
On 16 Dec 2009, at 16:10, Shawn Walker wrote:
Chris Ridd wrote:
That looks like it will update the affected packages and change the
publisher name at the same time. Is it safe to do this image-update?
It should be. You can always create an alternate BE using "pfexec
beadm create <name>" or create a zfs snapshot so you can rollback.
It seems to have come up OK, but has not surprisingly given me a 129
BE with a mixture of pkg://opensolaris-dev/ packages (things that
didn't change in 129) and pkg://opensolaris.org/ packages (things
which did).
Hopefully that won't cause problems going on to 130...
It shouldn't. But I'd keep around your old BE if you can spare the
space just in case unexpected issues arise.
Hi
I did a pkg info then grepped for the errant publisher, in my case
"Publisher: dev", then pkg uninstall -r to blow them away, as in the
case of netbeans there were a lot of dependent packages, so needed to
use -r, then I ran pkg install to get them back with the opensolaris.org
publisher.
Not sure it was actually needed, but at least my system is now consistent.
Now all my packages are from opensolaris.org, so shouldn't have any
issues on that front going forward.
If everything is working correctly, it shouldn't matter which publisher
a package came from; it is intended that a user be able to mix and match
as they please when it comes to software sources (publishers). However,
there are some fixes in review right now related to this.
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
