On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 10:01 +1300, Laszlo (Laca) Peter wrote: > 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
Ah, okay. A tangential question: Placing the build number in the name of the incorporation is curiously different than how the "entire" incorporation is put together. Why not have a "vermillion" incorporation that has different version numbers corresponding to different build numbers? Thanks, -Seb
