Web lists-archives.com

Re: debian zfs spl dkms build fails




On 10/25/17 22:19, David Christensen wrote:
On 10/25/17 21:23, Russell L. Carter wrote:
Greetings.  Your reply is completely nonresponsive to
the zfs kernel upgrade situation as it is today on debian.

Why did you bother?  It's weird.

I don't actually care very much.  I'm going to go back to
dumb extfs if required.  I'm just fishing for some sanity
here.

Please don't top post.


I bothered because the last time I tried ZOL (Debian 6?), the only option was to download the source from LLNL and build it.  Now there are official Debian binary packages available.  Thank you for providing the stimulus for me to discover that fact.  :-)


It appears that you are attempting to build the "testing" version of ZFS:

     https://packages.debian.org/buster/zfs-dkms


Yet, you expect the reliability of "stable".  Make sure you understand the three releases of Debian:

     https://www.debian.org/releases/


If you want stability, run "stable".  If you have the skills and interest to help fix bugs, then run "testing" or "unstable".


I've been running debian 'testing' for 18 years now.  I've been running
zfs on other OS's for 5 years now, some quite large.   Those other OSs
include some I've been running for over 20 years.  It should be inferred
that I've watched a lot of technology get integrated over that time.

Note that my complaint here is that the upgrade process that I've done
literally 1000s of times over that 18 years is now allowed to not only
break the *upgrade* process through broken kernel modules, it has the
added benefit of breaking *existing* working configurations.  That's
quite a packaging accomplishment, for 2017.

I take your commentary as confirmation on what I suspected.  Ideology
somehow has broken the technology integration process.  Oh well.

Out.  And out of using debian for a real OS.  But for 'testing' hey,
it's just great.  I've got my full backup and now I'm going to make
this a stupid box.

Russell



David