Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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+nG6YCsVEFEzce0PngfrY9U_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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADqw_gKzc7Gfyzx0CCKG05eW4Sw8SgNHTAajmZ_kesOmnv0z8Q>