On 11/10/10 01:19 PM, Bart Smaalders wrote:
On 11/08/10 01:43, Jan Hnatek wrote:
When I use the update with --be-name, isn't it enough to assume
that I expect a new BE to be created, wdyt? This way the option
is ignored. I'm not sure now if I didn't overlook that, but
a warning about this would be nice.
Hmmm...
We've had debates on this ourselves... not clear
whether --be-name should mean
"if you need a new BE, use this name"
vs
"I think you need a new BE, so use this".
- Bart
Since I'm "passing through" I'll pipe up and vote for the latter.
It's easy to change a BE's name after it's been created; it's not so
easy to undo an operation that updated the active BE in place, then
re-run that operation with an additional "--force-new-be" flag.
- Keith
--
Bart Smaalders Solaris Kernel Performance
[email protected] http://blogs.sun.com/barts
"You will contribute more with mercurial than with thunderbird."
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
