Sarah Jelinek wrote: ... > > I was actually thinking we would run the ICT stuff before we did the pkg > image-update. Much like we do a pkg image-update on a live system today. > So, I assume ips would take care of the configuration changes that are > required during an image update. > > The process would be: > 1. Install the bits that match the current booted client. > 2. The normal ICT and post install stuff is run by AI. > 3. Then run pkg image-update if we have detected that the user asked for > later bits than the booted client version. > > Do you think this would work? >
I'm sure it would work, since it's exactly the path you'd follow in updating from version R(unning) to version I(nstalled). But I question whether it's necessary... > As for upgrading the zpool version if we detected there was a version > higher that could be supported.. I think this is required since the user > is expecting to get the latest version supported with their request. We > can manage this in a fairly straightforward way I think. > I think updating zpool versions is a fairly minor issue, not one I'd focus on. The only problem it causes is newer features that aren't available until the upgrade, but that isn't an entirely unexpected path, since if you've been doing updates, you'll have the same problem, and hence there'll be documentation and so on covering the issue. Dave
