Shawn Walker wrote:
> On 06/08/12 15:14, Brock Pytlik wrote:
>
> >:) Yeah, I thought about -I, but we already have that option, though
> >undocumented and at the subcommand level, but since it has a meaning
> >that I thought was nearly opposite of what we wanted, I thought that
> >wasn't a good choice. Perhaps -i?
>
> I think the issue is that with all of the zone utilities, -z refers to
> the name of the zone, so that's going to be a hard thing to get out of
> people's heads, and they're also likely going to keep typing '-z' instead
> of '-Z' since that's how the zone utilities also work.
>
> -C would have been nice here for 'child', but Ed has stolen that for
> concurrency.
Ed hasn't put back yet, so the conversation is still open. -I could be
repurposed, too, if we really wanted it.
> Personally, I'd just punt on the more generic child images case and just
> handle zones. If we do that though, that would suggest we use '-z' for
> consistency with the zone utilities.
I'm curious to hear about plans for non-zone child images which we might
want to update in such a complex fashion. While I can dream up all sorts
of noxious, Lovecraftian scenarios ("The Imagewitch Horror", "The Image
from Beyond the Deep", etc), I think we're basically looking at zones and
at pretty simple child images, or at least ones which are sufficiently
detachable that trying to name them in any rational way defies my limited
abilities for comprehension.
Certainly nothing about Brock's proposal seemed to me to be useful for
images other than zones, but I'm willing to believe my imagination here is
a bit limited. (Thus my proposal of -Z, and, eventually, of -B, for
"operate in this non-live BE", which is also a rationally named image.)
Danek
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
