From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jul 12 16:24:05 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085F5106564A for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:24:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net) Received: from mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (rachie.is-a-geek.net [66.230.99.27]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E5B8FC08 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:24:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net) Received: from smoochies.rachie.is-a-geek.net (mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net [192.168.2.11]) by mailhub.rachie.is-a-geek.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5EAC7E818 for ; Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:24:03 -0800 (AKDT) From: Mel Flynn To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 08:24:02 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.4 (FreeBSD/8.0-CURRENT; KDE/4.2.4; i386; ; ) References: <4A58A056.3020002@haruhiism.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907120824.02622.mel.flynn+fbsd.current@mailing.thruhere.net> Subject: Re: Disk devices changed after upgrade to current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:24:05 -0000 On Saturday 11 July 2009 06:41:26 Matt Smith wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 18:23:18 +0400, Kamigishi Rei > > wrote: > > If you check June'09 archives, you'll find out that there already was a > > question about this, coming from a person with FreeBSD installed on a > > dangerously dedicated disk. > > Are you sure you aren't using a DDD (a drive that has no DOS/GPT > > partition tables, just the bsdlabel)? > > Ahhh. I have just found the thread you are referring to in the archives. > That explains it I think. I do indeed have a dangerously dedicated disk > because I only run the one O/S on it and never need it to be compatible > with anything else. So it looks like 7.x did things wrongly and now in 8 > it's working as designed. I do think this is worth mentioning in UPDATING, perhaps with the advice ("strongly recommended") to label partitions before upgrading so that one is not depending on device naming conventions in the first place. -- Mel