Hello, On 11/12/11 17:38, Robert Millan wrote: > 2011/12/11 Arno Töll <deb...@toell.net>: >> Back then I assumed that was quite intentional as upgrading to a 8.3 >> kernel solved the problem. That's why we added breaks conditions to the >> package back then. Aside of this problem there didn't seem to be a hard >> (i.e. API or ABI) incompatibility which would have caused a crash or so. > > TTOMK all break conditions are in place, but these don't cover all > possible combinations presented by D-I.
Looks like zfsutils 8.3 still has Breaks in place for 8.1/8.2 kernels, since 8.3~svn226546-3, so I guess it is safe to migrate to testing, and bug #648744 is unnecessary? zfsutils-udeb doesn't use Breaks, because the 8.2 and 9.0 images are must both be present, so... > The isinstallable script at least ought to be working. Any idea > what's wrong with that? > zfsutils is not a required module, it's supposed to be optional (just > like partman-zfs). partman-zfs and zfsutils 8.3 both get installed without a choice, instead of being listed in the menu of optional installer modules. I don't know why. It sounds like the .isinstallable feature is only supposed to hide items from that menu? I just tried another install using partman-zfs 16 and kfreebsd-8, which allows zpool/volumes (v15) to be created with zfsutils 8.3 and it generates a zpool.cache, but partman is still not listing any volumes as mentioned before. If that issue could be fixed somehow, maybe it would be unnecessary to try to include zfstils-udeb 8.2 in the installer? Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ee55327.8080...@pyro.eu.org