Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:01:26 +0100 From: Michael Schuster <michaelsprivate@gmail.com> To: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> Cc: "Oleg V. Nauman" <oleg@theweb.org.ua>, freeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: "make" in ports tells me "requires kernel source files in SRC_BASE=/usr/src." despite an up-to-date /usr/src Message-ID: <CADqw_gKzc7Gfyzx0CCKG05eW4Sw8SgNHTAajmZ_kesOmnv0z8Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <a71737ff-39f6-21ec-a4aa-a542aa70ce49@FreeBSD.org> References: <CADqw_gKG6ovTuN7bZvYy7PCydfCXH4M2fw68YLmLvZhxi-g2xw@mail.gmail.com> <601d6f51-e3e5-a780-332a-95648fe87168@yuripv.dev> <2281312.bDOn7JOVgO@sigill.theweb.org.ua> <CADqw_gL=9hY77i%2BnG6YCsVEFEzce0PngfrY9U_RYC2rrwD1MeQ@mail.gmail.com> <a71737ff-39f6-21ec-a4aa-a542aa70ce49@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 9, 2021 at 10:53 AM Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> 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'
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADqw_gKzc7Gfyzx0CCKG05eW4Sw8SgNHTAajmZ_kesOmnv0z8Q>