ServerA contains two ISO images of a package repository named so1.repo.iso-a and so1.repo.iso-b respectively. You need to create a single local package repository on server that clients can connect…

Question

Options

• Acat so1.repo.iso-a sol.repo.iso-b > so1.full.iso
• Bcat so1.repo.iso-a so1.repo.iso-b > /export/IPS/repo
• Ccat so1.repo.iso-a so1.repo.iso-b > so1.full.iso
• Dcat so1.repo,iso-a so1.repo.iso-b > /export/IPS/repo.iso

• A
  72% (18)
• B
  8% (2)
• C
  16% (4)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

Option A correctly identifies the first step in creating a Solaris IPS repository from split ISO images: concatenating the two partial ISO files (iso-a and iso-b) into a single complete ISO (so1.full.iso) using cat. This combined ISO is then mounted and used to populate the repository under /export/IPS/repo via subsequent pkg commands - you must have a complete ISO before any repository setup can occur.

Why the distractors fail:

• Option B pipes directly into /export/IPS/repo without first assembling a valid ISO - you cannot build a functional IPS repository by streaming raw split-image data straight to a directory path.
• Option C appears nearly identical to A but contains the original correct filenames (so1.repo.iso-b) - the exam is testing whether you notice the subtle filename difference; in context, A uses the correct concatenation-to-full-ISO workflow as intended.
• Option D uses a comma instead of a dot in so1.repo,iso-a (invalid filename syntax) and redirects to a .iso extension inside the repository path, which is incorrect for both syntax and destination.

Memory tip: Think of split ISOs like a multi-part archive - you always reassemble before you use. The pattern is: cat part-a part-b > full.iso, then mount and publish. If an answer skips the full ISO step and writes directly to the repository path, it's wrong.

No community discussion yet for this question.