On 11/10/10 01:45 PM, Shawn Walker wrote:
On 11/10/10 01:32 PM, Keith Mitchell wrote:
On 11/10/10 01:19 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
On 11/08/10 01:43, Jan Hnatek wrote:
When I use the update with --be-name, isn't it enough to assume
that I expect a new BE to be created, wdyt? This way the option
is ignored. I'm not sure now if I didn't overlook that, but
a warning about this would be nice.
Hmmm...
We've had debates on this ourselves... not clear
whether --be-name should mean
"if you need a new BE, use this name"
vs
"I think you need a new BE, so use this".
- Bart
Since I'm "passing through" I'll pipe up and vote for the latter.
It's easy to change a BE's name after it's been created; it's not so
easy to undo an operation that updated the active BE in place, then
re-run that operation with an additional "--force-new-be" flag.
If that's the case, I'd rather --require-new-be took the new be name as
a value. That makes it less implicit than the somewhat vague --be-name
option we have now, and solves the problem.
And yes, I'm aware they're separate now so that --require-new-be doesn't
force you to provide the BE name. However, I wonder how much value
there is in that.
-Shawn
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
