On 28/02/2014 10:20, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 28 February 2014 09:30, Turbo Fredriksson <tu...@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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53108145.8030...@debian.org