From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Tue Feb 9 10:01:40 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CEE538E9A for ; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:01:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michaelsprivate@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-xd31.google.com (mail-io1-xd31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d31]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DZdhh0TGJz4nF1; Tue, 9 Feb 2021 10:01:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michaelsprivate@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-xd31.google.com with SMTP id s24so18136808iob.6; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 02:01:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=uokDmYKLp5arQUdV/pcgLqFcZModalNVaHYlwxJWSUM=; b=ONzQak+afcxGH/4UB36C7VXoeuaM82U/eAUjRf/Ki1zqiDcNdubEYhpm6GGkKlnYL3 VLgMJjsZ5ZA1DlXaIW224IlpwTWb35K08Z8GaCJLxdx7EBrXn6prGr1XpkgQVYR4bo7j Ku6G++y5FA+ComAOgU40AxbTZHVKp8NaB/eM1DemIlVGsbyFfsVlyMQTIS4q5uQy+CUm nVOhaMXOPkqhcIHPO7D53E3Hcl17FunAk5TqKd6+C8Zk9HndnUEpNg6uwQCRrYIh0doD Y+T26yd3SgvDcI5SZUDat/e74wi/D+9CxGsKGdIAPN3WFIdCbjxwdC5IKuWDA/g1lQEH A+8w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=uokDmYKLp5arQUdV/pcgLqFcZModalNVaHYlwxJWSUM=; b=qgO6E3dtWHpsGu3ru42HOsKv5Px3ll3P43m5R55bGtJej4OA66YjUEaaT0RjW+CiiY xzQN9jI9nd9wy5QemM0i1T+70Ngr4gWLhboOfcXZRWQ5I4J6Ii43QPZGN1mz4q+UyZrU 1G1wXVX56j11/7xICC4xVMW7DR/Xv03oYUijE2J6RiIQusurnnNjFn+pG7AoOoJRnQT2 LB6kvVJp2QW+k14CMNxXasixkWWGZeGlxnPtYs9CJouxw+7R7p2OoYHytV1jBS/aR5GP QmQ6oA3KPZ7Cf0ClGXSivnvNy3zN/f5qySa5qNZCp02DdEJU6feQOPuu1dfjkQh6UjZz EWMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533wTQcbaqLwj8v8wj4o/AyyQvftLSWDRt9ONogRF78vhlMce4EE dDQmxh5zySak7ygebjSi+mXcRwrVRGzF2njDXacLl48dLTg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTy8r+hr+rukams8zEeJLS1FGR15iwzmYVNUpMNBBVeJ0MeM7yfRskgg2YeVViwsl3thfCEXy1zDhDyEIIiuE= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:db42:: with SMTP id r2mr18549180iop.103.1612864897515; Tue, 09 Feb 2021 02:01:37 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <601d6f51-e3e5-a780-332a-95648fe87168@yuripv.dev> <2281312.bDOn7JOVgO@sigill.theweb.org.ua> In-Reply-To: From: Michael Schuster Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:01:26 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: "make" in ports tells me "requires kernel source files in SRC_BASE=/usr/src." despite an up-to-date /usr/src To: Matthew Seaman Cc: "Oleg V. Nauman" , freeBSD Mailing List X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4DZdhh0TGJz4nF1 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.34 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:01:40 -0000 On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:53 AM Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 08/02/2021 20:10, Michael Schuster wrote: > > > $ bectl list > > BE Active Mountpoint Space Created > > [...] > > BE_20210206_175312_CURRENT14 NR / 30.8G 2021-02-06 17:53 > > BE_20210208_204901_CURRENT_14 - /mnt 860K 2021-02-08 20:49 > > > > ... which, as I found out, does NOT include /usr/src; only after > creating a > > snapshot of same and mounting that specifically: > > There's an important difference between beadm and bectl which seems > relevant here. beadm defaults to accepting a tree of ZFSes as a boot > environment, whereas bectl only applies to the ZFS at the top level of > the boot environment unless you use the -r flag. > Hi Matthew, unless I made a mistake in my tests (quite possible ;-)), beadm and bectl behaved identically (non-recursive) here. In fact, I created the BE you see above mounted on /mnt with beadm (I've been using bectl otherwise) to test that very difference before I wrote yesterday's email. That behaviour *may* of course be due to the fact that the one I started with (the active one, shown above) was created using bectl and the new one inherited that very behaviour you mention. When I get round to it, I'll do some more testing on this. > I don't know why the difference was introduced, since bectl was > specifically written as a drop-in replacement for beadm, and the > recursive behaviour of beadm is generally what you'ld want if you have > several ZFSes per boot environment and entirely harmless if you only > have a single ZFS per BE. > +1 on that. thx Michael -- Michael Schuster http://recursiveramblings.wordpress.com/ recursion, n: see 'recursion'