On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Danek Duvall wrote:
> 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.
>
i'm totally willing to switch from -C to something else (the other
option i considered was -P, but imo "parallelism" doesn't quite roll of
the tongue as easily as concurrency.
> > 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.)
>
when doing the original linked images project, the other scenario i had
in mind was diskless clients. the model i imagined was a "master" image
(that was never booted) and diskless clients were children of that
image. then updates could just be done on the master and automatically
propagated to all children. that said, i don't think we support
diskless boot in s11 and even if we did there's a ton of other deployment
utilities that could be used in this scenario.
but given that we don't actually have any use cases for these other
types of imaginary deployments, i kinda like the idea of a -z option
that specifies just zone names (and then doesn't have to worry about
additional layers of recursion, etc).
ed
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
