Hello www eebsd org,
How Are You..!!
My Name Is Subodh Am I An SEO Consultant
We Have New Business Increase Offer This Season For You..!
(1) Search Engines Optimizations (S.E.O)..!!
(2) Social Media Optimizations (S.M.O)..!!
(3) Top Rank On Search Engines Then You Can Find More Customers And Clie
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #22 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to vas from comment #20)
> Hear, hear! The sooner bsdlabel is forgotten the better.
No need to be extreme: modern BSD label capable of holding upto 20 partitions
is still just fine for MB
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #21 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to vas from comment #19)
ZFS boot blocks get updated periodically to support new zpool-features(7). For
example, booting from pools utilizing "skein" hash algotithm has not been
supported
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #20 from v...@mpeks.tomsk.su ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #18)
> I do not see large demand for ZFS-inside-BSDlabel-inside-MBRslice
> configuration but simplier ZFS-inside-MBRslice should be just fine.
Hear, hea
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #19 from v...@mpeks.tomsk.su ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #17)
I cannot imagine a scenario in which you have to install/update zfsboot on the
running system, over a mounted root pool. If it is a new installation,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #18 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #14)
> Oh, and I agree we should stop telling people to create a BSD partition, but
> we should support it because sometimes it's necessary for a swap or a dum
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #17 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to vas from comment #13)
ZFS won't allow GEOM to open its pool for writing unless the pool is exported
and export is not possible for mounted boot/root pool. Only ZFS itself may
update zfs
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #16 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #14)
> ptable_open should recurse properly though
There is nothing to recurse in the scenario described above.
Either zfsboot installation procedure must clea
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #15 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #14)
> So I'm not so sure that's the bug.
I do not insist that's the bug, a mis-feature may be :-)
> So if we can't open the s1 device (which we prohibit curr
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #14 from Warner Losh ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #12)
So I'm not so sure that's the bug.
The bug appears to be here:
pa.fd = open(devname, O_RDONLY);
if (pa.fd == -1)
return (
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #13 from v...@mpeks.tomsk.su ---
(In reply to Eugene Grosbein from comment #9)
> zpool bootcfg
Is that a good idea? I would think it would be more appropriate for "gpart
bootcode"
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You a
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #12 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to Warner Losh from comment #11)
Please look at https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714#c1 for
details.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #11 from Warner Losh ---
Explain the bug in libsa, and I'll fix the bug in libsa.
I agree, we shouldn't work around a bug that's easily fixed, or make snarky
comments about parts of the system that clearly have an active mainta
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #10 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to vas from comment #7)
The problem is not in zfsboot (it works just fine despite of BSD label
presense), it is in the libstand/libsa linked to zfsloader(8).
--
You are receiving this ma
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #9 from Eugene Grosbein ---
(In reply to vas from comment #6)
This "installation procedure" is inappropriate as a whole and should be not
explained but thrown away completely and replaced with something like new
command "zpool
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #8 from Mark Linimon ---
(In reply to vas from comment #7)
I am willing to help get the information into the wiki. Please email linimon@
if you are interested.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #7 from v...@mpeks.tomsk.su ---
(In reply to Andriy Gapon from comment #4)
> Someone needs to follow them exactly and to check what happens
Both the wiki links have multiple issues. If I were given the power, I would
merge them
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #6 from v...@mpeks.tomsk.su ---
(In reply to commit-hook from comment #5)
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/ada0s1 count=2
I find it inappropriate. You never explain the meaning of this hack, it will
look enigmatic for the uninitiated
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #5 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: eugen
Date: Tue Mar 27 17:37:08 UTC 2018
New revision: 331630
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/331630
Log:
Fix instructions in the zfsboo
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557
--- Comment #12 from Pietro Cerutti ---
Well, I have been kind of willing to remove this option anyway - if you look at
the alpha lang/tcl87, it doesn't have it. I think this bug popped up just at
the right moment to make me decide to event
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557
--- Comment #11 from Mathieu Arnold ---
Note that like the warning says, using WITH_opt / WITHOUT_opt is not supported.
It WILL NOT DO ANYTHING.
Especially, it will not enable or disable an option.
So the update to tcl was unwarranted.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557
--- Comment #10 from commit-h...@freebsd.org ---
A commit references this bug:
Author: gahr
Date: Tue Mar 27 14:24:26 UTC 2018
New revision: 465706
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/465706
Log:
lang/tcl85, lang/tcl86: remov
Hi,
Would you be interested in an email leads of Banks and Credit Unions? We can
help you reach out to key Top decision makers like:
Title includes:
> CEO/President/Chairman
> CFOs/Controllers
> Finance VPs/Directors/Managers
> Accounting/Finance Professionals
> Treasurers/Investment O
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557
--- Comment #9 from Bernard Spil ---
And references to /etc/make.conf in handbook too
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/kernelconfig-building.html
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226557
Bernard Spil changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||br...@freebsd.org,
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217489
--- Comment #6 from s...@mostnet.ru ---
patch attached, sorry for long delay
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
___
freebsd-doc@freebsd.org mailing list
htt
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217489
--- Comment #5 from s...@mostnet.ru ---
Created attachment 191867
--> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=191867&action=edit
patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226714
--- Comment #4 from Andriy Gapon ---
(In reply to vas from comment #0)
I am not sure why the first wiki link is marked as "does not boot". The
instructions look sane, but maybe there is a mistake in them. Someone needs to
follow them exac
28 matches
Mail list logo
