I would strongly discourage putting zfs-utils into a snap. I expect
many systems admins running zfs storage arrays do not install snapd, and
would be loathe to do so.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
** Changed in: zfs-linux (Ubuntu)
Assignee: Colin Ian King (colin-king) => Dimitri John Ledkov (xnox)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1791143
Title:
Suggestion to make
I'll put this on the wish-list agenda for 21.04
** Changed in: zfs-linux (Ubuntu)
Assignee: (unassigned) => Colin Ian King (colin-king)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1791143
** Changed in: zfs-linux (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
** Changed in: zfs-linux (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided => Wishlist
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1791143
Title:
As kernels 5.2.0-x will bring zfs 0.8.x to Bionic LTS, I'd like to draw
some attention to this request. People will get the 0.8.x zfs module via
HWE but won't be able to do much with the major new features without the
userland tools.
I tried to install the debs from Eoan, but they require a
My main reason for suggesting this is that it seems Canonical is easier
on snaps wrt. having rolling upgrades. I don't see a reason debs can't
do it, but I notice over and over again Canonical is very conservative
upgrading major software versions on debs (which is no criticism, just a
Is there something inherent in snaps that makes this easier or better
than debs? For example, do snaps support multiple installable versions
of the same package name?
If snaps aren’t inherently better, the same thing could be done with
debs using the usual convention for having multiple versions
