Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2021 09:42:46 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 254428] bectl(8) manual page update for bectl destroy, without and with option -o Message-ID: <bug-254428-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D254428 Bug ID: 254428 Summary: bectl(8) manual page update for bectl destroy, without and with option -o Product: Documentation Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: Manual Pages Assignee: bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: grahamperrin@gmail.com CC: doc@FreeBSD.org <https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/commit/sbin/bectl?id=3D8338f584dc6e4b8bc6257b= cce210d068f8280e3c&h=3Dmain> (2019-10-16): > bectl(8): destroy: use BE_DESTROY_AUTOORIGIN if -o is not specified >=20 > -o will force the origin to be destroyed unconditionally. >=20 > BE_DESTROY_AUTOORIGIN, on the other hand, will only destroy the=20 > origin if it matches the format used by be_snapshot. This lets us=20 > clean up the snapshots that are clearly not user-managed (because=20 > we're creating them) while leaving user-created snapshots in place=20 > and warning that they're still around when the BE created goes away. >From the manual page, for bectl destroy:=20 > =E2=80=A6 By default, bectl will warn that it is not destroying the origi= n of beName. =E2=80=A6 Is this statement of default behaviour suitably descriptive of the changes = that were introduced in 2019? Commentary under <https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2021/02/23/upgrade-freebsd-with-zfs-boot-en= vironments/#comment-18498> may be indicative of misunderstanding, or partial understanding.=20 (Do beadm(1) and bectl(8) share the same format for be_snapshot? And so on.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-254428-9>