Re: changes to the zfs boot (was: Re: git: 72a1cb05cd23 - main - rc(8): Add a zpoolupgrade rc.d script)

Quoting "Patrick M. Hausen" <pmh@hausen.com> (from Wed, 9 Nov 2022  
22:11:29 +0100):

> Hi,
>
>> Am 09.11.2022 um 22:05 schrieb Alexander Leidinger  
>> <Alexander@leidinger.net>:
>> Attention, "upgrade" is overloaded here. "OS upgrade" will not  
>> render the pool unbootable (modulo bugs), but "zpool upgrade rpool"  
>> will (except we have provisions that zpool upgrade doesn't enable  
>> all features in case the bootfs property is set).
>
> And we are back at the start. The "problem" is that I really like  
> consistency.
> So when "zpool status" throws that ominous message at me - any you have
> to admit that it is phrased like a warning - I want simply to get  
> rid of that.
> After a reasonable after-update grace period.
>
> But during our discussion I have come to wonder:
>
> - I upgrade from 13.0 to 13.1, I do a "zpool upgrade" afterwards, I  
> also upgrade the boot loader
>
> - I install 13.1 with ZFS
>
> What is the difference? Shouldn't these two imaginary systems be  
> absolutely the same in terms
> of ZFS features, boot loader, and all that?

On quick look I haven't found a place where a compatibility setting is  
used for the rpool during the creation, so I can't point out what the  
exact difference is.
Given that empty_bpobj is not in the list of the boot code, it can't  
be the same, some limit of enabled features has to be in place during  
initial install, and your example has to be different.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander@Leidinger.net: PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF
http://www.FreeBSD.org    netchild@FreeBSD.org  : PGP 0x8F31830F9F2772BF