Re: Proposal: Improve BE naming convention in freebsd-update install

Hi.

On 5/24/26 1:53 PM, Takashi Shimizu wrote:
>
> 1.
>
>     The name "default" is misleading. It suggests "the BE that boots
>     by default" or "the latest running state", but in practice it is
>     just the residue of the initial installation, with no NR flag. The
>     name and its actual purpose are mismatched.
>
To understand 'default' name choose you will have to move back in time 
to 2012 when I implemented *beadm(8)* for FreeBSD:

- https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/howto-freebsd-zfs-madness.31662/

The *pool/ROOT/default *was back then (and probably is still now) used 
by default on Solaris/Illumos - so I just recreated that - along with 
*beadm(8) *tool - its parameters and messages.

Of course it can be changed - right now I use something like that 
personally:

f25 vermaden ~ %*beadm list*
BE            Active Mountpoint  Space Created
14.4          NR     /           29.3G 2026-03-01 11:03
14.4.safe.OLD -      -            7.3G 2026-05-08 01:19
14.4.safe     -      -            1.6G 2026-05-18 20:48
15.0          -      -           12.7G 2026-05-21 12:24




On 5/25/26 2:40 AM, Edward Sanford Sutton, III wrote:
> I still feel like my understanding of BEs is a bit weak and am still 
> learning but is seems there are common misconceptions shared around 
> about them.

I tried to explain /ZFS Boot Environments/ multiple times ... but I 
still am not sure if I succeeded:

- https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2025/11/25/zfs-boot-environments-explained/

- 
https://vermaden.wordpress.com/2022/03/14/zfs-boot-environments-revolutions/

- https://is.gd/BECTL


Hope that helps.


Regards,

vermaden