Jerry Jelinek writes:
> We can handle 'update on attach' from s10 to nv, although nv isn't an
> official release yet and something might happen which breaks this (maybe
> IPS?).  We don't support 'update on attach' of s8 or s9, although I have 
> played
> around with that and it kind of works.  There are some other issues there
> which need to be looked at before we would support that.  One thing we've
> considered, but which is not part of this proposal, is to use 'update
> on attach' to convert an S8 or S9 branded zone into a native zone
> running S10.  There hasn't been any demand for that feature yet, so
> its not currently one we're working on.

Perhaps it's "not this project," but it'd be interesting to see where
this feature set is headed.

I would expect that since we support non-native brand zones, the user
has to choose (somehow) whether he wants to have his imported zone
become upgraded to the current system or whether he wants it to stay

Since we (intentionally?) make branded zones available only for minor
releases -- and not for individual KUs -- this means that the user
should expect that he's forced into an upgrade of some sort that
emulates patching when importing an S10 zone onto an S10 system.  But
should he expect this otherwise?  When we differ by a minor release,
there are two paths (as-is branded or upgrade to native), and it's not
clear which gets used or should be used.

Otherwise, if he's always forced into an upgrade, then that means
branded zones eventually go away, doesn't it?

Or does giving the user this sort of control open the possibility for
different zones on an S10 system that run different S10 Updates?

Obviously, I'm confused.  :-/

> > Is that correct?  If so, then at least the administrative aspects of
> > patching are relevant here: the result is as though the required
> > patches were installed into the newly-attached zone, regardless of how
> > it's implemented internally.  (And just as patching doesn't work
> > across minor releases, it doesn't work here.)
> When crossing a minor release boundary (like s10 to nv) all of the pkg
> version numbers change, so patches aren't a factor.  We see that there
> are new versions of the pkgs, so we know those pkgs need to be updated.

I think that misses the point.  I wasn't expecting "upgrade on attach"
to do anything across a minor release boundary; I was expecting it to
do what it does on S10, which (from a user's point of view, not an
implementation view) is effectively upgrade the bits as though patches
were added due to the differing patch levels of the source archive and
the running machine.

I'm surprised that it might do something different.

James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive        71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677
zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to