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
r...@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
r...@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@.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
