On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 10:30 am, Yuri Pankov <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > [email protected]:/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 > [email protected]:/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@. > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
It does seem like this could be related to my commit (see below). Although I runtime tested installs with both ZFS and UFS options, so I’m surprised. https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/356758 I’ll try to have a look at it tonight. Regards, Ben > -- -- From: Benjamin Woods [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
