* Keith Mitchell ([email protected]) wrote: > 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.
FWIW, I completely agree with Keith. Cheers, -- Glenn _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
