Debian Bug report logs - #686447

ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 18:06:01 UTC Owned by: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Severity: wishlist Fixed in version zfs-linux/0.6.5.5-1 Done: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Toggle useless messages

Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:06:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:06:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org> Subject: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:02:21 +0200

Package: wnpp Owner: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Severity: wishlist X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org * Package name : zfs-linux Version : 0.6.0 Upstream Author : Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> * URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/ * License : CDDL Programming Lang: C Description : The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem. ZFS is an advanced file system and volume manager which was originally developed for Solaris. It provides a number of advanced features like snapshots, clones, live integrity checksums, deduplication, compression and much more. The port to the Linux kernel includes a functional and stable SPA, DMU, ZVOL and ZFS Posix Layer (ZPL). . This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages are upgraded. . This package also contains the user space utilities needed to manage ZFS.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #10 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 20:18:54 +0200

On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 08:02:21PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS > for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel > modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages > are upgraded. > . > This package also contains the user space utilities needed to manage ZFS. Wow, this is actually very nice. I didn't know the implementation of ZFS has advanced that much. I would really love to see this in Debian anytime soon. Do you know how it compares to the version of zfs available for the FreeBSD kernels feature-wise? Cheers, Adrian

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:36:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 18:36:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #15 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:32:46 +0200

Hi, On 01.09.2012 20:02, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS > for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel > modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages > are upgraded. Question remains whether the resulting binary packages are distributable by Debian. You'd basically need to ship source only binary packages which are built on the installing platform - including utilities, not only for the kernel driver. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:15:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:15:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #20 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 21:10:02 +0200

On 01/09/12 20:18, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 08:02:21PM +0200, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > >> This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS >> for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel >> modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages >> are upgraded. >> . >> This package also contains the user space utilities needed to manage ZFS. > > Wow, this is actually very nice. I didn't know the implementation of > ZFS has advanced that much. I would really love to see this in Debian > anytime soon. > > Do you know how it compares to the version of zfs available for the > FreeBSD kernels feature-wise? > > Cheers, > > Adrian > > Wikipedia has a nice table comparing the different ports of ZFS [1] According to it, both the FreeBSD port and this Native Linux port (LLNL) are based on zpool version 28, for which the relevant changelog is also detailed on Wikipedia [2]. For the Linux port, the ZFS Posix Layer (ZPL) is available from version 0.6.0-rc1 and is expected to be completely stabilized for version 0.6.0 [3] Regards! -------- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Comparisons [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Release_history [3] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/7

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:18:14 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #23 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:17 +0200

On 01/09/12 20:36, Arno Töll wrote: > Hi, > > On 01.09.2012 20:02, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: >> This package contains the source code for the native implementation >> of ZFS for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that >> local kernel modules are automatically built and installed every time >> the kernel packages are upgraded. > > Question remains whether the resulting binary packages are distributable > by Debian. You'd basically need to ship source only binary packages > which are built on the installing platform - including utilities, not > only for the kernel driver. > > The user space utilities are not linked against any GPL library so there isn't any license problem distributing them in binary form. The only external dependencies for the user-space utilities are: libselinux1, zlib1g, and of course libc6.

Added blocking bug(s) of 686447: 686453 Request was from Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> to control@bugs.debian.org . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:27:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:48:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 19:48:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #30 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 20:45:20 +0100

On 1 September 2012 19:02, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote: > Package: wnpp > Owner: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> > Severity: wishlist > X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org > > * Package name : zfs-linux > Version : 0.6.0 > Upstream Author : Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> > * URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/ > * License : CDDL > Programming Lang: C > Description : The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem. > > ZFS is an advanced file system and volume manager which was originally > developed for Solaris. It provides a number of advanced features like > snapshots, clones, live integrity checksums, deduplication, compression > and much more. The port to the Linux kernel includes a functional and > stable SPA, DMU, ZVOL and ZFS Posix Layer (ZPL). > . > This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS > for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel > modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages > are upgraded. > . > This package also contains the user space utilities needed to manage ZFS. > If packaged properly, I am sure many people will find this useful. The missing revisions / functionality are: 29 RAID-Z/mirror hybrid allocator. 30 ZFS encryption. 31 improved 'zfs list' performance. 32 One MB block support 33 Improved share support I do have (personal?!) concerns about the ZFS future. After the zpool version 28, no more source code was release by oracle (please correct me if I am wrong). Are the specs released for the later zpool versions? As it is now, all implementations are incomplete in comparison with Oracle's implementation. And if no specs are available, the open source / linux implementations are going to become more and more incomplete in the future. What is the status on trademarks? Can we use the name "zfs"? For example, drdb trademark is actively being enforced. While the future of alternative zfs implementations does look gloom, I do think zfs (-like) implementations would be useful on linux and in debian. Regards, Dmitrijs.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:09:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #35 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> Cc: 686447@bugs.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2012 01:06:34 +0200

On 01/09/12 21:45, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > On 1 September 2012 19:02, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote: >> Package: wnpp >> Owner: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> >> Severity: wishlist >> X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org >> >> * Package name : zfs-linux >> Version : 0.6.0 >> Upstream Author : Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> >> * URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/ >> * License : CDDL >> Programming Lang: C >> Description : The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem. >> >> ZFS is an advanced file system and volume manager which was originally >> developed for Solaris. It provides a number of advanced features like >> snapshots, clones, live integrity checksums, deduplication, compression >> and much more. The port to the Linux kernel includes a functional and >> stable SPA, DMU, ZVOL and ZFS Posix Layer (ZPL). >> . >> This package contains the source code for the native implementation of ZFS >> for the Linux Kernel, which can be used with DKMS, so that local kernel >> modules are automatically built and installed every time the kernel packages >> are upgraded. >> . >> This package also contains the user space utilities needed to manage ZFS. >> > > If packaged properly, I am sure many people will find this useful. > > The missing revisions / functionality are: > > 29 RAID-Z/mirror hybrid allocator. > 30 ZFS encryption. > 31 improved 'zfs list' performance. > 32 One MB block support > 33 Improved share support > > I do have (personal?!) concerns about the ZFS future. After the zpool > version 28, no more source code was release by oracle (please correct > me if I am wrong). Are the specs released for the later zpool > versions? As it is now, all implementations are incomplete in > comparison with Oracle's implementation. And if no specs are > available, the open source / linux implementations are going to become > more and more incomplete in the future. This is true, the latest release of the ZFS source code is the zpool version 28. After Oracle took over Sun, they turned Solaris into a closed-source operating system effectively killing OpenSolaris. However, several open source projects (OpenIndiana and Illumos) forked OpenSolaris and continued its development in parallel. Also FreeBSD added official support for ZFS on their Kernel. So, while is true that possibly we can't expect Oracle supporting further development for the open-source ZFS, we can (and should) expect that this development effort continues in the open backed by the several open source efforts behind this (zfsonlinux, freebsd, illumos, openindiana, smartos, nexenta ...). There is already a working group composed by some of the former communities working on further development of the open source version of ZFS [1] About the ZFS specifications for the Oracle's zpool greater than 28, I don't know if they made this documents public (probably they didn't) Anyway this ZFS working group is developing the open source ZFS version independently from Oracle, so I guess (not sure about this) that the last ZFS version compatible between all the ZFS ports and Oracle/Solaris ZFS will be zfs=5,zpool=28. The ZFS working group has already shared a proposal for allocating zfs/zpool version numbers that allows the different parties to add features to ZFS independently without conflicts between them [2] For example, Illumos released a few months ago a new version of ZFS (zpool=5000) which added support for "asynchronous destruction of ZFS datasets" and "SPA versioning with zfs feature flags" [3], and the FreeBSD folks are already merging this in their port [4]. Its expected that the zfsonlinux project would also merge this changes on their port [5]. Also, ZFS in its current state (zfs=5 / zpool=28) is very stable and more feature-wise than any of the other filesystems available for Linux. Furthermore none of the features added from [29-33] is a killer feature, for encryption we already have LUKS/dm-crypt on Linux (you can just build a zfs volume on top of a LUKS/dm-crypt volume). > > What is the status on trademarks? Can we use the name "zfs"? For > example, drdb trademark is actively being enforced. > We already have in the archives the following packages using the zfs name: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=zfs&searchon=names&suite=all§ion=all So I don't see any problem there. If Oracle decide to enforce the zfs trademark we simply can rename the package and problem solved. Also, as I can see, Oracle not longer holds the ZFS trademark since they abandoned the application for it [6] > While the future of alternative zfs implementations does look gloom, I > do think zfs (-like) implementations would be useful on linux and in > debian. > I also think that can be useful, ZFS has many nice features that would boost Linux and Debian possibilities. Regards! -------- [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/444882/ http://lanyrd.com/2012/illumos-user-group-meetup-january/smxwd/ http://blog.delphix.com/csiden/files/2012/01/ZFS_Feature_Flags.pdf http://forums.freebsd.org/showthread.php?t=27159 [2] http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2011-May/048514.html [3] http://blog.vx.sk/archives/35-New-features-in-open-source-ZFS.html https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate/commits/master/usr/src/uts/common/sys/fs/zfs.h [4] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.devel.file-systems/15125 [5] https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/778 [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS http://tdrapi.uspto.gov/ts/cd/casestatus/sn85194050/content.html

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Mon, 03 Sep 2012 22:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #40 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Arno Töll <arno@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 17:37:58 -0500

Hello all, For more than two years, I've been maintaining the Ubuntu PPA for ZoL: https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs I put effort into keeping the packaging compatible with Debian Squeeze and Debian Wheezy, and I support a significant number of Debian users. If the Debian project is now willing to add the native ZFS implementation to regular distribution, then please consider me for the maintainer role. I've been looking for a mentor and sponsorship. -- Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:15:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to behlendorf1@llnl.gov :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:15:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #45 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Arno Töll <arno@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 15:00:37 -0700

> For more than two years, I've been maintaining the Ubuntu PPA for ZoL: > > https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable > https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl > https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs > > I put effort into keeping the packaging compatible with Debian Squeeze > and Debian Wheezy, and I support a significant number of Debian users. > > If the Debian project is now willing to add the native ZFS > implementation to regular distribution, then please consider me for > the maintainer role. I've been looking for a mentor and sponsorship. Hello all, Speaking on behalf of the upstream ZoL developers at LLNL. I'd like to add that Darik has done an excellent job maintaining the Ubuntu PPA. If sponsored I'm sure he would be a superb Debian maintainer for ZoL. Because of his efforts to properly package the project for Ubuntu, we've been able to attract a significant number of users and developers. In my opinion, this has substantially speed up our development schedule and confidence in the code base. Personally, I'd love to see the native ZFS implementation included in the regular Debian distribution. I know of no legal issues which would prevent this. And Carlos has already done nice job addressing the usual concerns earlier in this thread. -- Thanks, Brian

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:21:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:21:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #50 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Arno Töll <arno@debian.org> To: behlendorf1@llnl.gov Cc: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, dajhorn@vanadac.com Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:17:17 +0200

On 05.09.2012 00:00, Brian Behlendorf wrote: >> If the Debian project is now willing to add the native ZFS >> implementation to regular distribution, then please consider me for >> the maintainer role. I've been looking for a mentor and sponsorship. > Speaking on behalf of the upstream ZoL developers at LLNL. I'd like > to add that Darik has done an excellent job maintaining the Ubuntu PPA. > If sponsored I'm sure he would be a superb Debian maintainer for ZoL. Just for the archives: It is neither me nor Dmitrijs to "decide" who shall maintain the ZFS package in Debian (I am doing so for the kfreebsd port, i.e. the FreeBSD native zfs-utils, JFTR). This is not how we are used to work. We are basically implementing a first come, first served principle, where first served in this case refers to the first person filing the ITP bug. That's Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez in this case. That said - without knowing Carlos - I am pretty sure he won't reject help from Darik. Team maintenance is a good thing and I'm convinced Carlos agrees. Eventually this is something you both shall agree upon. The involved steps are documented in [1]. > Personally, I'd love to see the native ZFS implementation included in the > regular Debian distribution. I know of no legal issues which would prevent > this. And Carlos has already done nice job addressing the usual concerns > earlier in this thread. We are in a freeze currently. That shouldn't prevent you from working on a package, but I'd like to point out it might take some time until it really ends up in Debian. At very least it won't be in Debian Stable until Jessie (Wheezy's successor) is released, which is, well, $long_ahead. [1] http://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #55 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: Arno Töll <arno@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, behlendorf1@llnl.gov Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 02:19:41 +0200

On 04/09/12 00:37, Darik Horn wrote: > Hello all, > > For more than two years, I've been maintaining the Ubuntu PPA for ZoL: > > https://launchpad.net/~zfs-native/+archive/stable > https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-spl > https://github.com/dajhorn/pkg-zfs > > I put effort into keeping the packaging compatible with Debian Squeeze > and Debian Wheezy, and I support a significant number of Debian users. > > If the Debian project is now willing to add the native ZFS > implementation to regular distribution, then please consider me for > the maintainer role. I've been looking for a mentor and sponsorship. > Hello Darik, I'm aware of your great work on the Ubuntu PPA and I'm happy to see that you care also about Debian and not only Ubuntu. Fist of all let me clarify that there isn't such thing as "The Debian project willing" ... Debian hasn't any central authority deciding upon which software is packaged and which isn't. All the packages available on Debian are pushed either by individuals or teams. Meanwhile the package you intent to introduce inside Debian meets certain basic requirements you shouldn't have any problem at all to get it inside the distribution or to find a sponsor. The Debian project is always happy to accept new software that adds value to it. Among this requirements are: 1. The license of the software that you are packaging allows Debian to re-distribute it. 2. The software has certain quality (For ex: it don't introduce severe security issues or breaks unrelated packages) 3. The software is useful (Silly example: you shouldn't introduce a "hello world!" program) 4. The maintainer(s) behind the package are doing a good work packaging the software and maintaining it. And I'm sure that ZoL meets all this requirements without problems... that's why I filled this ITP Before filling this ITP I researched about previous tries of packaging ZoL on Debian and I wasn't able to find any previous ITP related to ZoL at all or even any discussion/thread on the Debian mailing lists about packaging ZoL.... Did you tried to package or introduce ZoL on Debian previously? If you want, I will be more than happy to co-maintain the package with you inside Debian. As Arno said, team maintenance is a great thing. Nowadays many of the Debian packages are maintained by teams rather than individuals. This helps to ensure a very high quality of the packages. So, let me know if you are willing to co-maintain ZoL inside Debian with me (and with anybody else who wants to help with the effort also) and we could start by setting up a repository for the team. Best regards!

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:12:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:12:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #60 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Cc: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Arno Töll <arno@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, behlendorf1@llnl.gov Subject: Re: Bug#686447: ITP: zfs-linux -- The native Linux kernel port of the ZFS filesystem Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 20:09:07 -0500

> Did you tried to package or introduce ZoL on Debian previously? No, not formally. > So, let me know if you are willing to co-maintain ZoL inside Debian with > me (and with anybody else who wants to help with the effort also) and we > could start by setting up a repository for the team. Yes, this sounds ideal. I will read the New Maintainers Guide again and contact you directly for instructions and coordination. In the meantime, please review the deb packaging that is already in the zfsonlinux/zfs and dajhorn/pkg-zfs repositories at Github. -- Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:36:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:36:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #65 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org Subject: zfsonlinux packaging Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 07:31:34 +0800

Hi, It has been one and a half months after these two ITPs get filed, I'm curious about if there are any progress for us to look into, e.g. a git repository. I'm a DD and I'm willing to review them if you'd like me to, even if zfs's future isn't clear to everyone it's still means a lot for some users. -- Regards, Aron Xu

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:30:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 01:30:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #70 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> Subject: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:26:33 +0100

Hi! Finally found some time to work on the spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages. I started with debian helpers from Darik Horn and I ended rewriting many things. Hope all looks ok O:-) You have a summary of the most relevant changes on the commit message [1] Keep in mind that the packages are still in beta status. There are things to fix like all the pending lintian warnings, perhaps rewriting debian/copyright (copyright notices can be added together when they share one or more authors, there is not need for an entry for each one) Also I will wait until upstream releases 0.6.0. I don't want to release a -rc version. Also 0.6.0 would be the version where the ZPL layer will be considered stabilized. I founded that there is not possible to add two people as maintainers. debuild will complain about malformed maintainer address. So I guess we need to set-up a project on Alioth to handle the team maintenance. I'm not a DD, so I would be very grateful if some of you that are DDs (Aron?) could set-up the Alioth project to collaborative maintain this package and add us to it (my login-name on Alioth is clopez-guest). I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't make sense to me. Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know). I guess Darik can review it and fix when needed so Ubuntu users can have a painless upgrade from the Darik's PPA packages to this ones. As you probably know Ubuntu "steals" the packages from Debian/sid for normal versions and from Debian/testing for LTS versions. So I guess this packages would end on Ubuntu's official repositories in a year or so. One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with the same name. Is allowed to have different source packages building binary packages with the same name when they are different architectures? If is not allowed then I guess we will have to rename the packages. The repositories with the packages are here: https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms Just in case someone want to test it, I have uploaded all packages built for AMD64 as also the source packages to here: http://ftp.neutrino.es/zfs-linux/ To test it, at least the packages zfs-dkms and zfsutils should be installed (with all the required dependencies). I will be on holidays next week. So looking forward to see your replies when I come back. Keep in mind that the packages are still a work-in-progress. Patches/pull-requests/suggestions are welcome :) Best regards! ------------- [1] https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms/commit/a88b5bf72fe8f11f7dbd0ebe17ba7b46e00a4e6f https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux/commit/8f3e1ef9a2dfbff9594e5d823e0d18121efba688

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:21:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sun, 16 Dec 2012 08:21:02 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #75 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 02:19:35 -0600

> I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't make sense to me. These dependency changes break upgrades from version 0.5, which is technically the current stable release. Upgrades across ABI revisions in the 0.6 series are also broken. Additionally, the libavl conflict still matters. Not understanding something is not a reason to delete it. > Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know). No, it applies to all distributions in the Debian family. > One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages > libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with > the same name. The pkg-zfs packages are named like kFreeBSD, Illumos, and Solaris so that third party software has basic control compatibility and can be more easily shared between platforms. (Further inline quotes are from the two commit messages.) > Strip from spl-dkms all files not related to kernel modules. Why are you removing copyright attributions like the AUTHORS file? This could upset ZoL contributors and cause legal exposure. > Rewrite postinst helper that ensures that /etc/hostid is valid and will remain constant across reboots. The __BYTE_ORDER__ test is interesting. I will likely add it to pkg-spl. However, randomizing the hostid violates the principle of least astonishment because it causes a zpool.cache mismatch that breaks subsequent imports, and it can break license management for non-Debian software. Stabilizing the hostid is safe, but changing the hostid is unsafe for the same reason that randomizing a missing hostname is wrong. > Use pristine-tar and create the package from tarballs released from upstream. The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs. Using the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect. > Don't ignore all files (--extend-diff-ignore='.*'). This is a convenience for me. It makes continuous integration easier. > Fix clean target and use dh_autoreconf This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems. Keeping compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is worthwhile and something that I want to do. > Update debian/watch to track upstream official release tarballs Is the Github redirector fully obsolete? (nb: http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch/) The pkg-spl and pkg-zfs watch files were added after an earlier private ITP review. > Strip from zfs-dkms all files not related to kernel modules. > Clean debian directory for unneeded *.docs > (copyright notices should be added to debian/copyright properly) The OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE file should be unmodified and bundled in every ZFS package, even if the CDDL is duplicated in the debian/copyright file. Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle lawyers. Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per installation is just not worth the risk. > Add zfs-linux metapackage for convenience to install all ZFS Consider naming this debian-zfs to fit the naming convention of other meta packages already in distribution, and to better accommodate the kFreeBSD platform in case the meta package can be shared. Big or important source packages do not typically provide their own meta. Doing this makes it more difficult for large sites to do local overrides and customization. (And it follows that I should rename the ubuntu-zfs source package to something like meta-ubuntu-zfs for better conformance.) > ensure dependencies are also always updated to the right version. This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the spl build. Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms. > General cleaning of files not needed (dracut/sudoers.d/...) These things were submitted by new ZoL contributors. Stripping them discourages further contribution from these people. > Add a debconf helper that checks if the running kernel is a 64-bit one. > If it detects that the kernel is 32-bit or it couldn't detect the kind of kernel > shows a warning to the user asking for confirmation before continuing. I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases. Double-check that the debconf can handle a non-default /etc/dkms/framework.conf file. The "/boot/config-$(uname -r)" test could be problematic. > Add /etc/init.d/zfs and remove /etc/init.d/{zfs-mount,zfs-share}. > There is not need at all for two different initscripts. This races on systems that have event driven init stacks like upstart or systemd, and it can break in a regular sysv init stack because networking can come online a long time after local storage is ready. What happens if /etc/fstab has a legacy line that causes an automatic import before /etc/init.d/zfs is called? What happens if zfs invokes /usr/bin/net or /usr/sbin/exportfs before the network comes up? What happens if /tmp, /usr, or /var is on a zfs mount point? > Integrate all lib* packages into libzfs1. This keep the package cleaner. > To me seems overkill have one package for each .so file The libnvpair and libzfs packages are separate in all other ZFS implementations, and I don't see the benefit in doing something unusual for Debian. Note that the current library breakout was approved by upstream. > when there is no real benefit (I don't expect any other package other than > zfsutils to link against this libraries) Why do you expect that ZFS libraries will not be linked by other packages? At least one person has mentioned on the discussion list that they are working on a web interface, somebody else is working on gparted and nagios integration, and there are several commercial efforts doing things on top of ZoL. > Many other minor cleans/fixes The total diff is 6,515 lines. Splitting functional changes into separate commits would be easier to review. Right now: * General compatibility with Ubuntu and Linux Mint is broken. * Upgrades to existing systems are broken. * Third party consumers are broken. -- Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 14:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #80 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Cc: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 22:53:19 +0800

Hi, On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote: > Hi! > > Finally found some time to work on the spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages. > > I started with debian helpers from Darik Horn and I ended rewriting many > things. Hope all looks ok O:-) You have a summary of the most relevant > changes on the commit message [1] > > Keep in mind that the packages are still in beta status. There are things > to fix like all the pending lintian warnings, perhaps rewriting > debian/copyright (copyright notices can be added together when they share > one or more authors, there is not need for an entry for each one) > > Also I will wait until upstream releases 0.6.0. I don't want to release > a -rc version. Also 0.6.0 would be the version where the ZPL layer will > be considered stabilized. > Darik said zfsonlinux upstream won't release 0.6.0 but go with 0.6.1 directly, because 0.6.0-rcX is actually numbers larger than 0.6.0. Releasing to experimental is okay for wider testing, and only upload to unstable when the versions/patches are acknowledged by upstream is reasonable. > I founded that there is not possible to add two people as maintainers. > debuild will complain about malformed maintainer address. > > So I guess we need to set-up a project on Alioth to handle the team > maintenance. I'm not a DD, so I would be very grateful if some of you > that are DDs (Aron?) could set-up the Alioth project to collaborative > maintain this package and add us to it (my login-name on Alioth is > clopez-guest). > I've set up a pkg-zfsonlinux team on alioth, and you've been added to the project already. Git hosting is okay now, but please don't create repository before we've decided how to maintain it. I recommend to use git-buildpackage, but you may like other ways. > I removed from the control files lot of replaces/conflicts that didn't > make sense to me. Perhaps for Ubuntu make sense (don't know). I guess > Darik can review it and fix when needed so Ubuntu users can have a painless > upgrade from the Darik's PPA packages to this ones. As you probably know > Ubuntu "steals" the packages from Debian/sid for normal versions and from > Debian/testing for LTS versions. So I guess this packages would end on > Ubuntu's official repositories in a year or so. > Those information is better to be preserved for compatibility, it makes no sense to deliberately make other people's life harder. In the future we can use experimental to provide upstream snapshots periodically and Darik's stable PPA can just replicate it for Ubuntu releases he would like to support. > > One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages > libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with > the same name. Is allowed to have different source packages building binary > packages with the same name when they are different architectures? If is not > allowed then I guess we will have to rename the packages. > It is possible when there isn't architecture collision, but we need to come into an agreement with kBSD people (and maybe ftp-masters) before actually doing so. > > The repositories with the packages are here: > > https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux > https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms > > I'll have a look on them later, and I think it's better to host such repositories on Debian's infrastructure after we've decided how to use it. > Just in case someone want to test it, I have uploaded all packages built > for AMD64 as also the source packages to here: > > > http://ftp.neutrino.es/zfs-linux/ > > > To test it, at least the packages zfs-dkms and zfsutils should be > installed (with all the required dependencies). > > I will be on holidays next week. So looking forward to see your replies > when I come back. > > > Keep in mind that the packages are still a work-in-progress. > > Patches/pull-requests/suggestions are welcome :) > > > > Best regards! > ------------- > > > [1] > https://github.com/clopez/spl-dkms/commit/a88b5bf72fe8f11f7dbd0ebe17ba7b46e00a4e6f > https://github.com/clopez/zfs-linux/commit/8f3e1ef9a2dfbff9594e5d823e0d18121efba688 >

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Mon, 17 Dec 2012 15:03:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #85 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org Cc: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> Subject: Re: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 23:00:25 +0800

The alioth project page is: https://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-zfsonlinux/ Please anyone interested in helping on the actual packaging apply and join the team. Currently I'll give admin privilege to anyone who is DD, and later to other people who need it when the project is on its right track. -- Regards, Aron Xu

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:57:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #90 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org Subject: native ZoL debs are available at archive.zfsonlinux.org Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:53:36 -0600

ITP feedback is merged into the upstream repositories and, because we missed the release deadline, native ZoL packages for Debian 7 will be published at: * deb http://archive.zfsonlinux.org/debian/ wheezy main contrib The core ZoL packages are already posted for limited testing, and the necessary helpers will appear sometime this week. Afterwards, we should discuss what should go into the Alioth repository.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 15 Feb 2013 23:21:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #95 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org Cc: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 00:18:04 +0100

Hi! An update here. I was a bit busy later. Today I was talking with Aron on IRC and we agreed that we will push your repository on Alioth in order to keep the full history. In fact is already there: http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-zfsonlinux/zfs.git http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=pkg-zfsonlinux/spl.git And we will start from this codebase. I will be rebasing some of the changes I did on a separate branch (and splitting them in small commits) so we could discuss later each one of this changes. See below for the inline replies to your last mail: On 16/12/12 09:19, Darik Horn wrote: >> Strip from spl-dkms all files not related to kernel modules. > > Why are you removing copyright attributions like the AUTHORS file? > This could upset ZoL contributors and cause legal exposure. > > I thought that debian/copyright file would be enough to give credit to the authors of the software. However you are right. A simple "apt-file search AUTHORS" give me more than enough reasons to keep this file. >> Rewrite postinst helper that ensures that /etc/hostid is valid and will remain constant across reboots. > > The __BYTE_ORDER__ test is interesting. I will likely add it to pkg-spl. > > However, randomizing the hostid violates the principle of least > astonishment because it causes a zpool.cache mismatch that breaks > subsequent imports, and it can break license management for non-Debian > software. > > Stabilizing the hostid is safe, but changing the hostid is unsafe for > the same reason that randomizing a missing hostname is wrong. > > I'm only randomizing it when the current host's hostid is "0xffffffff", which I understand is an invalid hostid for ZFS and would case it to stop working properly. Isn't this the case? > The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs. Using > the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently > practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect. We should agree on a common way of working. Either we use pristine-tar or not. I'm relative new to use git for Debian packages. So I'm open to follow yours and Aron advice. > > >> Fix clean target and use dh_autoreconf > > This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because > dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems. Keeping > compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is > worthwhile and something that I want to do. > > Well. I love to have things as clean and small as possible. dh_autoreconf helps with that. But I understand your point. Not big deal. >> Update debian/watch to track upstream official release tarballs > > Is the Github redirector fully obsolete? (nb: > http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch/) > > The pkg-spl and pkg-zfs watch files were added after an earlier > private ITP review. > > github redirector is not longer needed, so why use it? http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9 Also the url on the debian/watch on your packages is not working. This is what the current master on Alioth (your package) reports: $ uscan --report-status Processing watchfile line for package zfs-linux... Newest version on remote site is 0~master, local version is 0.6.0.97 zfs-linux: remote site does not even have current version This is what the package that I did previously reports: $ uscan --report-status Processing watchfile line for package zfs-linux... Newest version on remote site is 0.5.2, local version is 0.6.0~rc12 zfs-linux: remote site does not even have current version >> Strip from zfs-dkms all files not related to kernel modules. >> Clean debian directory for unneeded *.docs >> (copyright notices should be added to debian/copyright properly) > > The OPENSOLARIS.LICENSE file should be unmodified and bundled in every > ZFS package, even if the CDDL is duplicated in the debian/copyright > file. > > Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle > lawyers. Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per > installation is just not worth the risk. > > Ok. >> Add zfs-linux metapackage for convenience to install all ZFS > > Consider naming this debian-zfs to fit the naming convention of other > meta packages already in distribution, and to better accommodate the > kFreeBSD platform in case the meta package can be shared. > > Big or important source packages do not typically provide their own > meta. Doing this makes it more difficult for large sites to do local > overrides and customization. (And it follows that I should rename the > ubuntu-zfs source package to something like meta-ubuntu-zfs for better > conformance.) > > I don't see the point of sharing such metapackage with kFreeBSD. The whole point of the metapackage is to pull the right versions of the spl and zfs dkms modules (which are linux specific) plus the right versions of the user space tools that are also linux specific. >> ensure dependencies are also always updated to the right version. > > This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the > spl build. Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms. > > Is that a bug on dkms? was reported? >> General cleaning of files not needed (dracut/sudoers.d/...) > > These things were submitted by new ZoL contributors. Stripping them > discourages further contribution from these people. > I don't agree in this. Shipping a commented file in /etc/sudoers.d will only cause trouble when the package is upgraded and tries to overwrite your local changes. The right place for such file would be /usr/share/doc/$package/examples/ About dracut helpers, that should be moved to another package (zfs-dracut) as there is already one zfs-initramfs. But, honestly, given the popularity of dracut inside Debian/Ubuntu, I won't spend time on this. However I don't have problems if you want to work on it. http://qa.debian.org/popcon.php?package=dracut >> Add a debconf helper that checks if the running kernel is a 64-bit one. >> If it detects that the kernel is 32-bit or it couldn't detect the kind of kernel >> shows a warning to the user asking for confirmation before continuing. > > I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative > feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely > because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases. > IMHO enabling second-class architectures (non-x86) is a goal to achieve. It would help to find bugs on the codebase. Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases? I don't understand what you mean with this. > Double-check that the debconf can handle a non-default > /etc/dkms/framework.conf file. The "/boot/config-$(uname -r)" test > could be problematic. > That check don't requires dkms for nothing. It basically checks in your kernel config if you are running a 32 bit kernel. If it detects your kernel is a 32 bit one, it requires you to explicit accept the warning message. If it is unable to find your kernel config then it prints another warning saying that it couldn't detect if your kernel is 32 or 64 bit, and that you should only install this on a 64-bit kernel. The warning is only show once. Once you have accepted it, it won't show anymore whenever you upgrade or reinstall. I understand that this could be annoying, but this is exactly for what's intended. Better annoy people when they install the package for the firs time, that let them run this without knowing that it could cause data corruption or instability on their systems on the long term. > >> Add /etc/init.d/zfs and remove /etc/init.d/{zfs-mount,zfs-share}. >> There is not need at all for two different initscripts. > > This races on systems that have event driven init stacks like upstart > or systemd, and it can break in a regular sysv init stack because > networking can come online a long time after local storage is ready. > > What happens if /etc/fstab has a legacy line that causes an automatic > import before /etc/init.d/zfs is called? > > What happens if zfs invokes /usr/bin/net or /usr/sbin/exportfs before > the network comes up? > > What happens if /tmp, /usr, or /var is on a zfs mount point? > > Ok. Makes sense. >> Integrate all lib* packages into libzfs1. This keep the package cleaner. >> To me seems overkill have one package for each .so file > > The libnvpair and libzfs packages are separate in all other ZFS > implementations, and I don't see the benefit in doing something > unusual for Debian. Note that the current library breakout was > approved by upstream. > > >> when there is no real benefit (I don't expect any other package other than >> zfsutils to link against this libraries) > > Why do you expect that ZFS libraries will not be linked by other > packages? At least one person has mentioned on the discussion list > that they are working on a web interface, somebody else is working on > gparted and nagios integration, and there are several commercial > efforts doing things on top of ZoL. > > Ok. Makes sense. >> Many other minor cleans/fixes > > The total diff is 6,515 lines. Splitting functional changes into > separate commits would be easier to review. Right now: > > * General compatibility with Ubuntu and Linux Mint is broken. > * Upgrades to existing systems are broken. > * Third party consumers are broken. > Yes. I will be rebasing some of this work on top of the current master that is on Alioth on a new branch. And will be posting a mail with a summary of the changes on the mailing list pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org to discuss them prior merging it. I will do it on small iterations to avoid this kind of big mails that are hard to follow. PS: Darik, subscribe yourself to pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org if you are not already. Regards! --------

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 05:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 05:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #100 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com> To: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Cc: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org Subject: Re: Bug#686447: [RFC] First release of spl-dkms and zfs-linux packages for Debian Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:58:10 -0600

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> wrote: > I'm only randomizing it when the current host's hostid is "0xffffffff", > which I understand is an invalid hostid for ZFS and would case it to > stop working properly. Isn't this the case? Where I used 0xFFFFFFFF earlier, it was used as a canary value so that an interrupted installation would fail gracefully. Given that hostid() deterministically generates a value when the /etc/hostid file is missing, this line 60 in the spl-dkms.postinst is still suspect: dd if=/dev/urandom bs=1 count=3 seek=1 of=/etc/hostid 2>/dev/null My concern here is that changing the return of hostid() can break third-party software. (eg: FLEXlm.) >> The pristine-tar branch already exists in pkg-spl and pkg-zfs. Using >> the pristine-tar facility is certainly correct, but not currently >> practical for doing the frequent releases that ZoL users expect. > > We should agree on a common way of working. > > Either we use pristine-tar or not. Lets use pristine-tar then. >> This breaks backports for Lucid (and its derivatives) because >> dh-autoreconf is a non-main package on those systems. Keeping >> compatibility with all officially supported Ubuntu variants is >> worthwhile and something that I want to do. >> >> > > Well. I love to have things as clean and small as possible. > dh_autoreconf helps with that. But I understand your point. Not big deal. I intend to cease Lucid builds when it goes out of extended desktop support this April, so this issue will soon be mooted. > github redirector is not longer needed, so why use it? > > http://wiki.debian.org/debian/watch?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9 > > Also the url on the debian/watch on your packages is not working. Okay, it is obsolete. >> Modifying or omitting Oracle legal notices will attract Oracle >> lawyers. Saving less than 64 kilobytes of boilerplate per >> installation is just not worth the risk. >> >> > Ok. Thanks. This is a relief. >> This reintroduces a dkms ordering bug where the zfs build races the >> spl build. Notice how the BUILD_DEPENDS directive is handled by dkms. >> >> > > Is that a bug on dkms? This is more of an enhancement than a bug. Lustre, ZFS, and SPL are all separate projects upstream. No other Linux modules have such build dependencies outside of the packaging subsystem. > was reported? Yes. Note that zfsonlinux/dkms has a recent bug fix that has not yet been submitted upstream. > I don't agree in this. > > Shipping a commented file in /etc/sudoers.d will only cause trouble when > the package is upgraded and tries to overwrite your local changes. > > The right place for such file would be /usr/share/doc/$package/examples/ Okay, that is a fair substitute. >> I added this kind of nagging to some private builds and got negative >> feedback. YMMV. Consider disabling second-class architectures entirely >> because Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases. >> > > IMHO enabling second-class architectures (non-x86) is a goal to achieve. > It would help to find bugs on the codebase. ZFS depends on assumptions about the Linux vmalloc that are false for 32-bit kernels. It is worth noting that ARM support in ZoL is arguably better than 32-bit x86 support. > Debian publishes updates very slowly between major releases? I don't > understand what you mean with this. It sounded like there was an effort to get ZoL into Wheezy. Any version of ZoL that gets into a stable Debian release will have a very long lifetime, and it is likely that upstream will improve 32-bit support in the meantime. > The warning is only show once. Once you have accepted it, it won't show > anymore whenever you upgrade or reinstall. > > > I understand that this could be annoying, but this is exactly for what's > intended. Better annoy people when they install the package for the firs > time, that let them run this without knowing that it could cause data > corruption or instability on their systems on the long term. Okay, this is ultimately an issue of aesthetics, so I will defer. > PS: Darik, subscribe yourself to > pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org if you are not already. I am subscribed. TTYS. -- Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:24:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:24:06 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #105 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Aron Xu <aron@debian.org> To: "Debian GNU/kBSD" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org Subject: ZFS on Linux and native ZFS on BSD Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:20:53 +0800

Dear fellow developers, It has been quite some time since native ZFS on Linux (zfsonlinux, or ZoL) enters release candidate testing phrase, and a team has been founded recently for the work in Debian (pkg-zfsonlinux). Here we have several issues to be confirmed and coordinated between kBSD and ZoL, so that we can work for the desirable direction. 1. Naming of the packages In kFreeBSD, src:zfsutils produces libnvpair1{,-udeb}, libumem1{,-udeb}, libuutil1{,-udeb}, libzfs1{,-udeb}, libzpool1{,-udeb}, and zfsutils{,-udeb}. I'm curious if we can reuse the names of these binary packages on linux-any architectures, and choose a different source package name (zfs-linux, currently)? 2. Partman support As far as I know, partman-zfs is GPL licensed, and does not need to link against any CDDL stuff, so I think it would be OK to integrate ZoL support if there are people do the work? 3. Compatibility (zpool, etc) In ZoL RC14, zpool version has been bumped to 5000, following the step of OpenIndiana. I'm curious what's the current zpool version in kFreeBSD, and what's your plan? It would be great if people can import existing ZoL partition to a kFreeBSD installation, or reversely. There is also a question about /etc/hostid handling, do you know how is it handled in kBSD? Existing packaging work of Fedora ZoL makes hostid static, but I doubt it's desired. 4. About zfs-fuse on Linux Debian package maintainer of zfs-fuse has joined the team of ZoL, and he said we may remove zfs-fuse from the archive when ZoL is available in unstable, so zfs-fuse won't get in the way of naming and compatibility then. 5. Licensing ZoL is an independent Linux kernel module developed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) under a contract between U.S. Department of Energy and LLNL, and is separated into two parts to avoid violating CDDL. A Solaris Porting Layer (SPL) kernel module is developed to provide many of the Solaris kernel APIs, and is licensed under GPL-2+, while the zfs modules are CDDL, reusing existing OpenSolaris code and cooperate with BSDs and OpenIndiana. -- Regards, Aron Xu

Added tag(s) pending. Request was from Anibal Monsalve Salazar <anibal@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org . (Sat, 03 Aug 2013 20:06:03 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:03:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #112 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: common ZFS extras Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:00:41 +0100

Hi, There are a few goodies in zfsutils package which are useful to different ZFS implementations but not (yet?) shared in a common package. You might find them useful: debian/local/bash_completion.d/zfsutils (stolen from zfs-fuse) debian/zfsutils.cron.d (stolen from linux softraid) debian/zfsutils.cron.daily (ToH snapshot management script I wrote myself, very useful IMHO ;-)) If you think it's worth it, we could split them off zfsutils into a separate binary-all package. -- Robert Millan

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:09:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Thu, 07 Nov 2013 21:09:07 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #117 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: 686447@bugs.debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: conflicting package names Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 22:07:25 +0100

> One question that floats over my mind is related to the name of the packages > libzfs-dev libzfs1 and zfsutils. On Debian/kFreeBSD there are packages with > the same name. Is allowed to have different source packages building binary > packages with the same name when they are different architectures? Btw doing this *used to* break stuff. I think it was the BTS, testing migration scripts, or a combination of the two. In order to avoid this, I recommend that you rename: zfsutils - command-line tools to manage ZFS filesystems As for the other conflicting packages, there is little point in providing them as separate libraries, as they have no users other than those provided in zfsutils. I would suggest you merge them into whatever becomes of zfsutils: libnvpair1 - Solaris name-value library for Linux libuutil1 - Solaris userland utility library for Linux libzfs-dev - Native ZFS filesystem development files for Linux libzfs1 - Native ZFS filesystem library for Linux libzpool1 - Native ZFS pool library for Linux -- Robert Millan

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Tue, 11 Feb 2014 01:15:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #122 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com> To: bluestonechina@gmail.com Cc: Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org Subject: any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 20:11:24 -0500

Hi guys, I got interested to see on current status of the project to bring ZFS to Debian Linux land. In a brief search found your post http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zfsonlinux-devel/2014-February/000179.html and wondered if there was any reply and either there are any objective reasons why it is stuck in NEW for a while without any decision (could may be the binary package name collision described in the ITP report?) Thank you in advance for the clarification(s) -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Senior Research Associate, Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:42:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:42:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #127 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> To: pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org Cc: Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Debian ZFS on Linux maintainers <pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:30:20 +0100

I'm basically Ccing half the world in this (only half sorry about that :) and I don't know who half of you are :), but there have been very little information on what's happening with ZoL in Debian GNU/Linux. Aron (and in some part Carlos) seems to have gone a-wall and the list have been VERY quiet. It seems like it's only Aron and me that is actually Debian GNU/Linux Developers (unless other things have happened outside the list that I'm not aware of - Carlos was/is a maintainer if I don't misremembering and Darik is in the wait queue?). And no actually status information/reason from the FTP maintainers about why it have been stuck in incoming for so long (accepted into incoming Sun, 07 Jul 2013 16:00:06 - that's more than six months ago!). Have it been rejected? Is it held up for some reason? What can I/we do to help move it along? I'm now the current Debian GNU/Linux Wheezy package maintainer (and have been for quite some time) for/in ZoL ("upstream" from Debian GNU/Linux I suppose) and I have contributed to both the packaging (that is already in the Alioth repos) as well as bits and pieces to ZoL code (such as SMB and iSCSI support - which will be accepted into post-0.6.3 which is due out "very soon now" we hope) and also wrote support for ZoL to be used as installation target (debian installer, part-man) etc. With that - I have a large vested interest in maintaining this and I work on it almost daily, so if no one else have the time (Aron, Carlos).... I know that Darik is also very busy working on this, and he already maintain (and have for a very long time) the Ubuntu packages in ZoL, and much (most, all?) of the current packaging is from his busy hands. So I'd prefer to work with him on this (if aron/carlos don't have the time/interest that is - I'm not proposing to steal the packaging!). Since there have been next to no progress in the Debian GNU/Linux ZoL projects, I have done all my packaging stuff in the ZoL repos, so if/when this project is revitalized, I'll push all my work to the Debian GNU/Linux repos as individual commits.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:24:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:24:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #132 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> Cc: pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:20:10 +0000

Hello, On 28 February 2014 09:30, Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> wrote: > I'm basically Ccing half the world in this (only half sorry about that :) and I don't know who half > of you are :), but there have been very little information on what's happening with ZoL in Debian > GNU/Linux. > > Aron (and in some part Carlos) seems to have gone a-wall and the list have been VERY quiet. It seems > like it's only Aron and me that is actually Debian GNU/Linux Developers (unless other things have > happened outside the list that I'm not aware of - Carlos was/is a maintainer if I don't > misremembering and Darik is in the wait queue?). And no actually status information/reason from the > FTP maintainers about why it have been stuck in incoming for so long (accepted into incoming Sun, 07 > Jul 2013 16:00:06 - that's more than six months ago!). Have it been rejected? Is it held up for some > reason? What can I/we do to help move it along? > Apart from talking to ftp-masters, I don't know. > > I'm now the current Debian GNU/Linux Wheezy package maintainer (and have been for quite some time) > for/in ZoL ("upstream" from Debian GNU/Linux I suppose) and I have contributed to both the packaging > (that is already in the Alioth repos) as well as bits and pieces to ZoL code (such as SMB and iSCSI > support - which will be accepted into post-0.6.3 which is due out "very soon now" we hope) and also > wrote support for ZoL to be used as installation target (debian installer, part-man) etc. > > With that - I have a large vested interest in maintaining this and I work on it almost daily, so if > no one else have the time (Aron, Carlos).... > > I know that Darik is also very busy working on this, and he already maintain (and have for a very > long time) the Ubuntu packages in ZoL, and much (most, all?) of the current packaging is from his > busy hands. > > So I'd prefer to work with him on this (if aron/carlos don't have the time/interest that is - I'm not > proposing to steal the packaging!). > > > Since there have been next to no progress in the Debian GNU/Linux ZoL projects, I have done all my > packaging stuff in the ZoL repos, so if/when this project is revitalized, I'll push all my work to > the Debian GNU/Linux repos as individual commits. Where is the latest/greatest set of packaging repositories and/or packages to look at? I'd love to evaluate it on Ubuntu, after informal discussion with Ubuntu ftp-master, I got an agreement that ZoL is a technology we'd be willing to include in the Ubuntu Archive. -- Regards, Dimitri.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 10:39:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #137 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org> Cc: pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:20 +0100

> Where is the latest/greatest set of packaging repositories and/or packages to look at? For Debian GNU/Linux Wheezy, this would be https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/master/debian/wheezy/0.6.3-0.8_g540ce4_wheezy I'm not sure which tag is the latest for Ubuntu (I'm a little unfamiliar which Ubuntu release that's latest - Darik is managing that part). But if I had to guess, it would be: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/master/ubuntu/saucy/0.6.2-1_saucy and possibly https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/master/ubuntu/quantal/0.6.2-1_quantal I'm fairly certain Darik have been doing snapshots for quite some time, and the Ubuntu snapshots I found would be https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/snapshot/ubuntu/saucy/0.6.2-2_saucy_2.gbp46f6df https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/snapshot/ubuntu/quantal/0.6.1-2_quantal_1.gbpfde0ad > I'd love to evaluate it on Ubuntu, after informal discussion with > Ubuntu ftp-master, I got an agreement that ZoL is a technology we'd be > willing to include in the Ubuntu Archive. Don't forget to talk to Darik about this first. He's been doing Ubuntu packages for ZoL for years.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:21:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:21:13 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #142 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Debian ZFS on Linux maintainers <pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:09:02 +0100

On Feb 28, 2014, at 11:34 AM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: >> Where is the latest/greatest set of packaging repositories and/or packages to look at? > > For Debian GNU/Linux Wheezy, this would be > > https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/master/debian/wheezy/0.6.3-0.8_g540ce4_wheezy Make that https://github.com/zfsonlinux/pkg-zfs/tree/snapshot/debian/wheezy/0.6.3-0.9_g540ce4_wheezy

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:33:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:33:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #147 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> To: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> Cc: pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <happyaron.xu@gmail.com>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, "debian-bsd@lists.debian.org" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 12:29:57 +0000

On 28/02/2014 10:20, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 28 February 2014 09:30, Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> wrote: >> I'm basically Ccing half the world in this (only half sorry about that :) and I don't know who half >> of you are :), but there have been very little information on what's happening with ZoL in Debian >> GNU/Linux. >> >> Aron (and in some part Carlos) seems to have gone a-wall and the list have been VERY quiet. It seems >> like it's only Aron and me that is actually Debian GNU/Linux Developers (unless other things have >> happened outside the list that I'm not aware of - Carlos was/is a maintainer if I don't >> misremembering and Darik is in the wait queue?). And no actually status information/reason from the >> FTP maintainers about why it have been stuck in incoming for so long (accepted into incoming Sun, 07 >> Jul 2013 16:00:06 - that's more than six months ago!). Have it been rejected? Is it held up for some >> reason? What can I/we do to help move it along? Hi, The proposed package is poorly integrated with existing ZFS packages (e.g. zfsutils for native kFreeBSD support). First and foremost, there's a namespace grab which is likely to result in trouble, as I explained last November (and got no answer): https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686447#117 There are also a number of implementation-independant add-ons which would be good practice to coordinate in some way with the other ZFS maintainers. I explained this in November too, and again got no answer: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=686447#112 And annoyingly, there's also been complaints that ZoL developers broke partman-zfs by committing porting updates that break existing support on kFreeBSD: https://lists.debian.org/debian-bsd/2014/02/msg00037.html I'm happy to see partman-zfs support more platforms, and I don't mind myself if those platforms are not yet part of Debian when support is merged. But I would at least find it reasonable that porting changes include an effort to avoid breaking existing production environments. We do this all the time when porting to kFreeBSD. I think it should work both ways. That I know of, nobody has spent the time to fix this particular mess yet :-( -- Robert Millan

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 13:03:04 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #152 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> Cc: pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, ftpmaster@debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:00:35 +0100

On 28/02/14 10:30, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > I'm basically Ccing half the world in this (only half sorry about that :) and I don't know who half > of you are :), but there have been very little information on what's happening with ZoL in Debian > GNU/Linux. > > Aron (and in some part Carlos) seems to have gone a-wall and the list have been VERY quiet. It seems > like it's only Aron and me that is actually Debian GNU/Linux Developers (unless other things have > happened outside the list that I'm not aware of - Carlos was/is a maintainer if I don't > misremembering and Darik is in the wait queue?). And no actually status information/reason from the > FTP maintainers about why it have been stuck in incoming for so long (accepted into incoming Sun, 07 > Jul 2013 16:00:06 - that's more than six months ago!). Have it been rejected? Is it held up for some > reason? What can I/we do to help move it along? > > > I'm now the current Debian GNU/Linux Wheezy package maintainer (and have been for quite some time) > for/in ZoL ("upstream" from Debian GNU/Linux I suppose) and I have contributed to both the packaging > (that is already in the Alioth repos) as well as bits and pieces to ZoL code (such as SMB and iSCSI > support - which will be accepted into post-0.6.3 which is due out "very soon now" we hope) and also > wrote support for ZoL to be used as installation target (debian installer, part-man) etc. > > With that - I have a large vested interest in maintaining this and I work on it almost daily, so if > no one else have the time (Aron, Carlos).... > > I know that Darik is also very busy working on this, and he already maintain (and have for a very > long time) the Ubuntu packages in ZoL, and much (most, all?) of the current packaging is from his > busy hands. > > So I'd prefer to work with him on this (if aron/carlos don't have the time/interest that is - I'm not > proposing to steal the packaging!). > > > Since there have been next to no progress in the Debian GNU/Linux ZoL projects, I have done all my > packaging stuff in the ZoL repos, so if/when this project is revitalized, I'll push all my work to > the Debian GNU/Linux repos as individual commits. > Hi, We are still waiting for ftp-masters. I already poked them yesterday and this was their answer: Thu Feb 26 #debian-ftp on OFTC [13:20] <clopez> anyone from the ftp team can quickly and gently tell me about the status of the package zfs-linux on NEW? It has been sitting there for 6 months already [14:28] <paultag> clopez: no one has had time to properly ensure the CDDL / GPL linking mess is above the table [14:29] <paultag> k [14:29] <paultag> whoops [14:29] <clopez> paultag: there is no CCDL / GPL linking: the package only ships the kernel module in source format, the kernel module binaries are built at install time with dkms [14:29] <paultag> I understand that's the line [14:30] <paultag> but the fact is it's transitively linking is something we have to look at [14:30] <paultag> I know when the website copy says about it [14:30] <clopez> sorry, what means transitively linking? [14:31] <paultag> I need to leave for work, just because you link to a shim which links to something doesn't mean it's not all linked together. [14:32] <clopez> paultag: I understand, but the package don't ships kernel binaries, only source code. So as long as binaries are not distributed (and the package don't distributes them) I think there is no problem [14:32] <paultag> I understand what the website says [14:33] <paultag> but you'll not be suprised when we take our time figuring out what the hell is going on with this one. [14:34] <clopez> yes, I understand you need your time, only wanted to have an update regarding this because I felt it was somehow forgotten [14:34] <clopez> thanks for the update [14:34] <paultag> it's not forgotten, we just haven't had a slice of time to commune about it [14:34] <paultag> feel free to email ftpmaster@ and poke [14:37] <clopez> Liang Guo did that some weeks ago but he got not reply (AFAIK) So, I don't know how more we can do other than wait. Regards!

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:18:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 15:18:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #157 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> To: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, "debian-bsd@lists.debian.org" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:13:20 +0100

On Feb 28, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Robert Millan wrote: > The proposed package is poorly integrated with existing ZFS packages (e.g. zfsutils for native > kFreeBSD support). > > First and foremost, there's a namespace grab which is likely to result in trouble, as I explained > last November (and got no answer) Why is this a problem? Also, "eventually" _all_ open source ZFS implementations will be built from the source base. A couple of months ago, OpenZFS.org was created to merge all (Illumos, BSD*, ZoL etc) current implementations into one code tree. I don't exactly know the status of OpenZFS, Brian Behlendorf is active/the driving force in both OpenZFS and ZoL and might know more. ZoL is currently playing the catch-up game to get it in line with the rest, and I doubt there is some kind of time schedule but hopefully it won't take to many years :). So if we rename zfsutils for ZoL now, we'll have to rename it back later. With all the hassle that will entail (especially since we know going in that we will have to rename it). > There are also a number of implementation-independant add-ons which would be good practice to > coordinate in some way with the other ZFS maintainers. I'll add those then, thanx. > And annoyingly, there's also been complaints that ZoL developers broke partman-zfs by committing > porting updates that break existing support on kFreeBSD !! No "ZoL developer" have "committed porting updates" to partman-zfs !! _I_ have however, sent in patches to it/them for review, where I have clearly stated that discussion was needed - and warned about possible breaking it for kBSD and asked for input and comments on how it worked there so I could write a better patch. It's very flattering that people thought my stuff was good enough to accept without further review, but it's also a bit frightening - I'm good, but not THAT good (as we could see :). On Feb 28, 2014, at 2:00 PM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote: > [14:34] <paultag> it's not forgotten, we just haven't had a slice of time to commune about it > [14:34] <paultag> feel free to email ftpmaster@ and poke > [14:37] <clopez> Liang Guo did that some weeks ago but he got not reply (AFAIK) > > So, I don't know how more we can do other than wait. Six months and counting... Ah, well. There's some issues with the following package any way, so maybe we should take use the time and get it in good shape. Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is still stuck in incoming?

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:21:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@debian.org> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:21:09 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #162 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@debian.org> To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org> Cc: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, "debian-bsd@lists.debian.org" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:16:30 -0500

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is still stuck in incoming? yes! -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Senior Research Associate, Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:24:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:24:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #167 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org> Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, 686453@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org, "debian-bsd@lists.debian.org" <debian-bsd@lists.debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:23:18 +0100

On 02/28/2014 04:13 PM, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: > Is it ok/allowed to upload a new package, even though the initial one is still stuck in incoming? I suggest asking the FTP masters to mark the package as REJECT if you want to change something again. As long the package is still stuck in NEW (not incoming, this is where the package goes once it's been ACCEPTED), you can always have it rejected. It's the cleaner solution in my opinion instead of uselessly bumping the package revision to fix minor issues before the package isn't even ACCEPTED. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> :

Bug#686447 ; Package wnpp . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:30:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Acknowledgement sent to Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> :

Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> . (Fri, 28 Feb 2014 16:30:05 GMT) (full text, mbox, link).

Message #172 received at 686447@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com> To: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> Cc: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>, Debian ZFS on Linux maintainers <pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>, Liang Guo <bluestonechina@gmail.com>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>, ftpmaster@debian.org, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com> Subject: Re: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW? Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:25:15 +0100

On Feb 28, 2014, at 5:23 PM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > I suggest asking the FTP masters to mark the package as REJECT if you > want to change something again. Well, regarding the packaging, a lot have happened since this summer. And this is also true with the code itself. But doing a REJECT might be pointless/overkill, since it isn't the packaging that's at fault, but the FTP maintainers inability to verify that there is no licensing issue. -- Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try! - Yoda

Information 