Brad Hall wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 01:20:26PM -0700, Dan Price wrote: >> On Wed 24 Sep 2008 at 05:00PM, Brad Hall wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 03:27:49PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 03:36:51PM -0700, Brad Hall wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/bug-388-2/ >> I'm sorry to be late on comments about this RFE. As I was falling >> asleep last night it occurred to me that we should probably take >> a ZFS snapshot (via the BE stuff) if we decide that any fixing is >> needed. This could be a boon if the fix goes wrong somehow, or if >> the user wants to i.e. go back to the pre-fixed state. > > That's a good point -- I'll add support for that. > >> The other thing that occurred to me was that fix might not work >> properly for certain cases-- such as the libc case, where we mount >> the processor specific libc over top of the real libc... there must >> be code in 'verify' that copes with this somehow, but I'm not clear >> where that code actually lives. > > Not currently sure what to do in that case; but yes, we should handle it. > > Thanks, > Brad > _______________________________________________ > pkg-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
OK, new webrev posted: http://cr.opensolaris.org/~bhall/bug-388-4/ This one contains the following changes: - If it is going to repair anything it takes a zfs snapshot - Moved to using imageplan rather than calling the actions install method directly (per Bart's suggestion); this allows for the fixing of hardlinks correctly using the code he already had in there for updates. - Removed the action::repair functions since the actions sent back by verify are added to the update list for the packageplans now, which calls install anyways. Thanks, Brad _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
