On 06/08/12 15:16, Brock Pytlik wrote:
On 06/08/12 06:49, Mike Gerdts wrote:
On 06/07/12 22:13, Brock Pytlik wrote:
[snip]
In all of the above, it seems as though you aren't using image names, rather
you are using zone names. -Z evokes "zone". Thus, it shouldn't be "root",
it should be "global". This avoids the problems associated with a zone named
"root".
That does bring up another issue. Is there intent to allow user images to be
linked to a system image? If so we probably need a way to distinguish
between user images and system images because user images are unlikely to be
participate in this scheme that is clearly aimed at zones.
No, I actually do mean image names. I'm not sure what about the names implies
they're zones and not images. If it's that they don't all begin with "system:"
or "linked:" or whatever the tag is, my hope was that we could make an
educated inference about what kind of image they meant 99.9% of the time, and
not make them type the same prefix over and over and over.
I wasn't aware that images had names. For some strange reason, I was also
thinking that -Z meant zone rather than zChildImage (forgot about the silent
z...) :).
We haven't even decided what a user image is, so I don't know at the moment
whether or not they'd participate in such a scheme. My complete guess is that
any child image in a "push" relation to the parent image is a valid option
with -Z (or whatever character we'd like to choose instead), and no "pull"
images would be. I also don't really care whether we use "root" or "#ROOT#" or
__ROOT__ or any other random combination of characters that can't be a
zone/image name.
My apologies if this example seemed aimed at zones. Since they're the only
actual instances of linked images that exist today, I may have accidentally
skewed the example in that direction (but since zones can't be inside a zone
unlike some of the relationships I covered above, I'm not totally sure how I
did that).
Understood.
[snip]
"Synced package" brings up something that wasn't mentioned before - it wasn't
clear that you intended this to cause some sort of ongoing dependency between
the packages in the two images. Does "pkg -Z '*' install application/foo"
tag application/foo to be kept in sync? Assuming the answer is yes, consider
the following operations:
The answer is no. I don't propose to change that whether a package is synced
or not is an aspect of its packaging, not its installation method. A synced
package is one that has a parent dependency on itself.
[snip]
Brock
Gotcha, thanks for the clarifications.
--
Mike Gerdts
Solaris Core OS / Zones http://blogs.oracle.com/zoneszone/
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
