Re: Bug#861263: debian-installer: zfs support
On 05/05/2017, Sam Kuper <sam.kuper@uclmail.net> wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
>> The legal status of ZFSonLinux was discussed by the FTP team and DPL
>> over a long period, with input from legal counsel, resulting in a
>> decision to put it in the 'contrib' section. That decision is unlikely
>> to be revisited soon.
>
> Thanks. I have searched for such a discussion but have not yet found
> it. Do you have a link to the discussion? Did its conclusions
> definitely cover source distribution, or only binaries?
I still have not found the discussion, but I have found a helpful
summary by Neil McGovern. In a comment thread there, Neil summarises
the reason to put the ZFS DKMS into "main", even though it is
distributed as source:[1]
Martin (February 28, 2017 at 6:14 pm):
> I understand the decision to distribute ZFS as source
> only, but could you elaborate on why the package is
> going into contrib rather than main?
Neil McGovern (February 28, 2017 at 6:26 pm):
> Sure – it’s about the promise that Debian makes to
> the end user. Basically, by it being in main you’re
> legally able to redistribute the end product (along with
> source). With a CDDL module and a GPL2+ kernel,
> that becomes – at best – unclear.
I would still like to see the original discussion, but for the time
being, this comment of Neil's adequately answer my question about
Debian's rationale re: source vs binary and "contrib" vs "main".
However, there is another comment thread on Neil's summary that seems
very pertinent to this bug (Bug#861263):[2]
Bill McGrath (March 12, 2016 at 1:27 am):
> [...] If source is the only option, might I
> suggest building a script into the installer to do the
> downloading and compiling so that installation will still
> be a breeze.
Neil McGovern (March 14, 2016 at 9:11 am):
> This is what’ll happen already, we’re using DKMS
In other words, Bill McGrath's request matches my suggestion above[3],
and Neil McGovern's reply suggests it is already on Debian's roadmap.
Why, then, is this bug (Bug#861263) marked as wontfix? Did something
change Neil's mind after that comment was posted? Or was Neil wrong at
the time to suggest that the Debian Installer will include a script to
download and compile ZFS?
[1] https://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/#comment-13678
[2] https://blog.halon.org.uk/2016/01/on-zfs-in-debian/#comment-9055
[3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861263#17
Reply to: