Shawn Walker wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> Jan Damborsky wrote: >>> I am not sure, how common is going to be comparing to the others >>> when X-1 problem would have to be solved, just trying to think >>> where the differences come from and how those map to the possible >>> use cases. >> >> Repos can have multiple builds, and if a user wanted to install a >> particular build, a manifest would be customized to install particular >> buildN. Reuse of this 'known to work manifest' would be the use case >> I can think of where we could be in a situation that a buildX >> installer is >> told to install buildX-1 > > While that's true, you run into some of the problems mentioned > earlier. That is, there is no guarantee that the executing installer > bits will create a zpool, boot environment, grub configuration, etc. > that are compatible with that older build.
Understood. I was just giving a use case of when that scenario could happen without thinking about technical limitations. > > There's also the issue of compatibility within pkg(5) itself. pkg(5) > currently isn't guaranteed to be backwards compatible; that is, an > image created with a newer version of pkg(5) won't necessarily work > correctly with an older version of pkg(5). That's good to know. This is probably implied but I'll ask for completeness - is the reverse supported? thanks, -ethan > > There are plans to add image versioning information soon so that > incompatibilities in the image format can be detected and dealt with > by the client (that is, it can refuse to execute). > > Cheers,
