Control: tags -1 wontfix
Thanks for reaching out for this issue. I've noticed the Ubuntu updates as well.
I'd personally not prefer to upload zfs-X.Y.99 anytime in the future. Since
debian
is volunteer-based, we don't seem to have more bandwidth than Ubuntu for
dealing with
regressions and serious bugs in a snapshot version.
And, as mentioned, the openzfs upstream has forked our debian packaging scripts
to produce the native-deb packages. Users who seriously need the cutting edge
version could surely try it out. We are still the upstream for the debian
packaging
scripts which can be found in the openzfs repository.
Yes, I'm kind of conservative regarding this. It is not subject to any rule
though.
On Fri, 2023-06-16 at 09:23 +0200, Damiano Albani wrote:
> Package: zfs-linux
> Severity: wishlist
> X-Debbugs-Cc: damiano.alb...@gmail.com
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> Ubuntu recently started using the master branch of OpenZFS (a.k.a. 2.1.99)
> for ZFS packages in Mantic:
> https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zfs-linux/2.1.99-0ubuntu4.
>
> Would Debian consider such a move as well?
> My understanding is that Debian tends to be more conservative(?) than Ubuntu
> in that regard, so maybe have this 2.1.99 package in Debian Experimental?
> (I don't know much about the whole Debian packaging rules, so I hope it makes
> sense.)
>
> As you problably already know, it is *already* possible to build Debian
> packages from the master branch of OpenZFS: see
> https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Developer%20Resources/Building%20ZFS.html.
> While this package definition maintained by OpenZFS works totally fine,
> it produces packages named like "openzfs-zfs-dkms", "openzfs-zfsutils", etc,
> which is not compatible with Debian packages depending on "zfsutils-linux"
> for example.
>
> So is it something that you would consider?
> Thanks!
>
> Best Regards,
>
