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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
