On 11/10/10 14:34, Danek Duvall wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
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.
If you don't care about your BE names, and are happy with solaris-N, then
you don't use --be-name. I think people who do that are mental. :)
On the other hand, if I used --be-name and got a new BE, but was surprised
that I didn't actually get bits that required it, I would likely be that it
created the new BE for me anyway, and would want to re-run the command to
not produce the new BE.
We probably need to think about this a bit more, anyway. Bart and I had a
discussion the other day about having successful non-BE-creating operations
leaving behind your previous BE (i.e., take a snapshot prior to the
operation and operate in the live image like a normal install, but instead
of deleting the snapshot on success, create a new BE based on that
snapshot). Pretty slick for leaving a trail of BEs for posterity, which it
appears some customers might like. But it introduces a whole new angle to
thinking about naming BEs -- am I naming the next one, the previous one, or
am I renaming the current one (and passing the current name off to the now
previous BE)?
Indeed.... and speaking of which, is there anyone else that would like
to make a tree view out of their boot environments? After a while,
confusion sets in if you've updated old BEs....
- Bart
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
"You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
