On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 16:48 -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote:
> Okay, so the usage model here isn't to install the vermillion
> incorporation and to keep upgrading using image-update. Rather, it's to
> manually create an alternate BE to play with these bits. To upgrade the
> OS, the user would have to go back to a previous BE (without the
> development vermillion bits), do an image-update, re-create another
> alternate BE from the result, and re-install the development vermillion
> bits.
You can do that and it's probably safer to do so, in case you find
vermillion to be unstable, but you can also keep updating your
system to the latest /dev and /vermillion bits.
Without testing, I think that this sequence will update both:
# pkg image-update <-- this will update /dev
but not vermillion
# pkg uninstall verm-b<x>-i386 <-- uninstall the vermillion
incorporation
# pkg install verm-b<x+1>-i386 <-- install the next vermillion
build
Laca
> I think stating this up front in your documentation above will save you
> time in preventing users from complaining when they start noticing that
> image-update doesn't do what they think it should do...
>
> -Seb
>
>
