Bug#686447: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW?
- To: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@bayour.com>
- Cc: Dimitri John Ledkov <xnox@debian.org>, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez <clopez@igalia.com>, Yaroslav Halchenko <yoh@onerussian.com>, Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>, Aron Xu <aron@debian.org>, Alex Waite <alexqw85@gmail.com>, Debian ZFS on Linux maintainers <pkg-zfsonlinux-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>, debian-bsd@lists.debian.org, 686447@bugs.debian.org, Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov>, Darik Horn <dajhorn@vanadac.com>
- Subject: Bug#686447: [Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] any news/reply regarding ZFS in NEW?
- From: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 11:05:53 +0000
- Message-id: <[🔎] 53131091.8060105@debian.org>
- Reply-to: Robert Millan <rmh@debian.org>, 686447@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] BE8A6574-93A9-4E3E-89D3-0E590574942D@bayour.com>
- References: <20140211011124.GD5179@onerussian.com> <6913AD6C-99E6-40EB-8A75-11A2B1FB9CFA@debian.org> <CANBHLUi6ynNRU6vayNhC2edwfD1vs79NFw=RdTMtB30qghttug@mail.gmail.com> <53108145.8030808@debian.org> <767F4094-13DB-4567-AD54-BB2446C4EDA9@debian.org> <[🔎] 5311DFE0.6030502@debian.org> <[🔎] BE8A6574-93A9-4E3E-89D3-0E590574942D@bayour.com>
On 01/03/2014 15:46, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Please give us/me a direct link to the Debian GNU/Linux policy point that explain that this is not acceptable.
I don't have that. I'm telling you that Debian infrastructure is not ready to handle cross-arch
namespace collisions based on my experience hitting the exact same problem before. There's a reason
we add a "freebsd-" prefix to functionally equivalent packages like:
freebsd-smbfs - mount command for the SMB/CIFS filesystem
freebsd-net-tools - FreeBSD networking tools
freebsd-nfs-common - NFS support files common to client and server
freebsd-nfs-server - FreeBSD server utilities needed for NFS on GNU/kFreeBSD
freebsd-ppp - FreeBSD Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) userland daemon
Your repeated insistence on occupying the "zfsutils" namespace makes me think you have a self-serving
reason for this. How do you plan to react when actual breakage happens?
On 02/03/2014 05:56, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> That is what OpenZFS.org is for - eventually (hopefully sooner than later), you/we/I will be able to
> do just that - one source base for all architectures (Linux, FreeBSD, Illumos etc). But we (they)
> aren't there yet.
>
>
> As it stands today, there are two "upstream sources" for/in Debian GNU/Linux - one for the Linux
> kernel and one for the FreeBSD kernel. These share _a lot_ (I can't give you an exact figure, but if
> I had to give a "between thumb and index finger guess", I'd say 90%) of the same code (they both
> originated from the last open Solaris release before Oracle closed the source again) and provide the
> exact same functionality, in the exact same way with binary programs that behave the exact same way
> (same options and parameters etc).
Unless I missed something, ZoL is not OpenZFS. And neither ZoL nor OpenZFS support the kernel of
FreeBSD at the time of writing.
You make it look like you're adding a portable package, when in fact it is a Linux-specific
package.
The idea that you're adding a portable package is very consistent with your pretension of occupying
the namespace. I think it would serve that agenda to imply that ZoL is OpenZFS and the source you're
adding is portable, but I don't think you even believe what you're implying.
If you truly believe in the "unification path", why don't you try Dimitri's suggestion? I notice
that you ignored it on your reply to him:
On 02/03/2014 03:52, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote:
> Also, if there is zfs-dkms module available, why existing zfsutils
> packages just can't enable compilation on "linux-any"?! Which should
> also reduce the scope of linux specific packages down to
> -dkms/-initramfs, and maybe an arch specific patch-series.
The packages are so similar, right? Maybe he has a point. Why don't you send patches for zfsutils to
enable compilation on linux-any? I'll be happy to work with you.
--
Robert Millan
Reply to: