Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:15:53 +0000 From: Thomas Sparrevohn <Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: New ZFS in the tree. Message-ID: <200811200015.54319.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> In-Reply-To: <gg0orl$p5l$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <20081117205526.GC1733@garage.freebsd.pl> <200811182340.13372.Thomas.Sparrevohn@btinternet.com> <gg0orl$p5l$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 19 November 2008 10:14:02 Ivan Voras wrote: > Thomas Sparrevohn wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 November 2008 21:56:38 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:50:51PM +0000, Thomas Sparrevohn wrote: > >>> On Tuesday 18 November 2008 21:32:44 Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > >>>> What's unexpected in that? As I noted it still needs more work, so > >>>> chflags(2) working properly would be unexpected for me:) > >>>> > >>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> LOL - Unexpected that it just not returns operation not supported as it used to - I was a bit > >>> trigger happy and upgraded my main pool - against the sound advice - leaves me in a bit of trouble ;-) > >> Try 'make installworld NO_FSCHG='. > >> > > > > LOL and now I feel really stupid - thanks > > Hmmm, I did an installworld from UFS to ZFS yesterday without special > flags (actually, multiple installworlds for benchmarking), without > errors. Files really did get schg (or equivalent) flag since I couldn't > rm them afterwards. How is this possible? :) > > > That is a surprise - as mine failed - totally - had to manually restore libc
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200811200015.54319.Thomas.Sparrevohn>