[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#861263: debian-installer: zfs support

On 5 May 2017 at 15:27, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net> wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>>> 2. Add ZFS to a Debian Installer that is not the *default* Debian
>>> Installer. Does Debian distribute such an installer, to which the
>>> facility to compile and run ZFS could be added?
>> Yes, there is already an (officially unofficial) installer that
>> includes non-free firmware.
> Thanks for the information. Can the non-free aspect of that installer
> be disabled by the user during installation? If not, then it would be
> no use to anyone I know who would be interested in running ZFS under
> Debian. That is because a key reason to use Debian in preference to
> other distros is that Debian's blob-free kernel and DFSG-compliant
> main and contrib repositories make it easy to avoid installing
> non-free software. If a person doesn't mind the risk of installing
> non-free firmware then they may as well just skip Debian and use
> Ubuntu or FreeBSD instead, which ship with ZFS in the installer by
> default.

I would recommend the second of the following options:

1. Install using the non-free media with "Advanced options" -> "Expert install"
2. Install using the non-free media, then cleanup

apt-get install aptitude
sed -i 's/ non-free//' /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
aptitude search ?obsolete -F '%p' --disable-columns \
    | apt-get purge

...and the non-free packages should be gone.  And if you don't want
aptitude you can purge that too.  It's faster than an "Advanced
options" -> "Expert install", where I believe it is also possible to
install a system which pulls uniquely from main and contrib.

There are a more reasons to use Debian than just default package
selection... eg: updates policy, minimal sysadmin headaches, smooth
upgrades even from major version to major version, very high quality
packaging standards, etc.  These are pragmatic reasons to prefer
Debian.  In my opinion embracing CDDL constitutes ideological
compromise, because it forbids "mixing" with with GPL--the most
socioally conscious and not neoliberal license.  And if Debian isn't
'pure' enough, there are always these:


Reply to: