On 11/10/11 12:02, Robert Millan wrote:
Hi Zachary,
2011/9/14 Zachary Bedell<pendorbo...@gmail.com>:
FWIW, my commit comment locally for this was:
* Adjusts autoconf logic to properly detect libzfs on Linux.
* Includes additional headers necessary for libspl.
Excuse me if I missed something, but weren't you holding the position
that libzfs ABI was too unstable and relying on it from external
programs was a bad idea?
Recently Debian has had severe problems in this area because of this.
C.f. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645305
Last month I sent a proof of concept patch that implements this idea
(in "getroot for ZFS without libzfs?" thread). Did you see this part
of the thread?
Hi,
I had a conversation with Vladimir about this. I think retaining
libzfs is a good thing, Debian bugs notwithstanding. libzfs provides an
interfaces that enables a consumer to find zpool on system without
scanning the world (the idea being that the kernel has already done
that, and has cached that information), so one need not have to deal
with devices that might become unresponsive to a user-level process when
scanned. It also allows one to enumerate pools that might have the same
name (in which case you'd use the pool's GUID (in base 10) to access the
pool). So libzfs, whatever its stability level, still seems like a
better plan than going out to disks directly and pulling metadata.
(FWIW, I looked at that Debian bug, and IMHO, the problem there was that
libzfs wasn't properly versioned in the first place-- if the person who
added or changed the libzfs API didn't version it, they're just asking
for trouble. The proper solution in that case would have been adding
versioning and not pulling the whole library).
--S
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
