On Tue, May 12, 2026, at 16:48, Ulrich Wexler wrote: > But what I don't understand is why you guys don't mark the kernel as > incompatible?
TL;DR: kernels aren't numbered in a suitable way. On Debian for example, packages like linux-image-amd64 are versioned with the full kernel version - eg: 6.12.73-1, or 7.0.4-1~bpo13+1. Getting the conflicts or depends correct under all circumstances is nontrivial, as you can't wildcard them. (Yes, it's *possible* with hacks like "< 6.19.999", but one needs to consider the tradeoffs between this kind of dependency and the possibility of edge case breakage when something unexpected happens upstream.) > I'm actually thinking about writing a pre-install hook which intercepts > `zfs-dkms`, unpacks the `control` and `/META`, adds the appropriate max > kernel version, repacks and then installs that instead. An easier approach, for what it's worth, is what I do - instead of installing linux-image-amd64, I maintain a local package "zfs-linux-image-amd64" which strictly depends on specific kernel and zfs-dkms | zfs-modules versions. This is pulled in from my local repository, and ensures that no upgrades happen until I've validated that they work. Colm -- Colm Buckley / [email protected]
