Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 16:08:09 +0300 From: Toomas Soome <tsoome@me.com> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r366626 - head/sbin/reboot Message-ID: <35355AD6-42C6-48A2-8FCF-A371A82D683A@me.com> In-Reply-To: <20201011130151.GA32755@FreeBSD.org> References: <202010111040.09BAeCfg073782@repo.freebsd.org> <8601CC07-3A43-461A-915C-3CB68BADF41A@me.com> <20201011130151.GA32755@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On 11. Oct 2020, at 16:01, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 03:20:16PM +0300, Toomas Soome wrote: >> Please note, the remove is done by rc script during the boot. > > But not by the loader(8) as the page used to claim. It confused me how to > avoid the remove, and only later I've discovered with some relief that it > is in fact not being removed, but only disabled (which IMHO is a lot more > graceful and thus correct behavior). > >> Also nextboot.conf not generic configuration file (such as loader.conf >> or loader.conf.local), but the implementation specific file, part of >> special feature. >> >> That is, one should not assume the presence of nextboot.conf file, make >> assumptions about its content, or perform manual edits on it. > > Do we want it to be the second-class citizen like this? Would it make > better sense by documenting it more completely instead? > > ./danfe It is not really about being second-class citizen, it really is about if and how we can implement the feature. With UFS there is a limited write (write to existing, allocated disk blocks), with zfs there is no write to file system at all. rgds, toomashome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35355AD6-42C6-48A2-8FCF-A371A82D683A>