David Wolfskill wrote: > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:18:41AM +0000, Clay Daniels wrote: >> 13.0-CURRENT r356767 would not take NO for an answer, and kept up a loop >> until I gave up trying to use UFS. No big deal, seems to work fine... >> >> Clay >> .... > > Err...? Is there some additional context that I'm missing? > > I've been tracking head daily for ... longer than I really want to > think about, including on at least one system that has no ZFS file > systems; the last couple of smoke-tests were at: > > FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #7 r356758M/356758: Wed Jan 15 03:49:49 PST 2020 root_at_g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY amd64 1300076 1300076 > > and > > FreeBSD g1-53.catwhisker.org 13.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 13.0-CURRENT #8 r356786M/356787: Thu Jan 16 03:56:45 PST 2020 root_at_g1-53.catwhisker.org:/common/S4/obj/usr/src/amd64.amd64/sys/CANARY amd64 1300076 1300076 > > It is not clear to me at what point anything might have a chance > to indicate that it "wanted ZFS" and request an action. Likely it's about the latest 13.0-CURRENT snapshot image (r356767) and the change to bsdinstall to make ZFS default partitioning scheme, now discussed on arch_at_.Received on Thu Jan 16 2020 - 23:29:39 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:22 UTC