Shawn Walker wrote: > And yes, I'm aware they're separate now so that --require-new-be > doesn't force you to provide the BE name. However, I wonder how > much value there is in that.
If you don't care about your BE names, and are happy with solaris-N, then you don't use --be-name. I think people who do that are mental. :) On the other hand, if I used --be-name and got a new BE, but was surprised that I didn't actually get bits that required it, I would likely be that it created the new BE for me anyway, and would want to re-run the command to not produce the new BE. We probably need to think about this a bit more, anyway. Bart and I had a discussion the other day about having successful non-BE-creating operations leaving behind your previous BE (i.e., take a snapshot prior to the operation and operate in the live image like a normal install, but instead of deleting the snapshot on success, create a new BE based on that snapshot). Pretty slick for leaving a trail of BEs for posterity, which it appears some customers might like. But it introduces a whole new angle to thinking about naming BEs -- am I naming the next one, the previous one, or am I renaming the current one (and passing the current name off to the now previous BE)? Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
