I *really* don't think we should be pushing RC versions of ZFS (or any other project) to the mainline Debian distributions. Using a kernel from "unstable" has always been risky, and in this case one of the risks is that ZFS will not work.
Maintainer bandwidth is a limited resource, and I would vastly prefer that time be spent on ensuring the stability and reliability of the "stable" release, with the second priority being a reasonable set of updates being available in "backports". Zhou and the gang do a great job in keeping things up to date; I wouldn't view it as their responsibility to deal with breakages in unstable, unless there's some other compelling reason. My personal preference, assuming maintainer time is available, would be to continue to offer 2.1.X in stable, and 2.2.X in backports when 2.2.0 is released (as opposed to being RC). Colm On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 12:09, Peter Samuelson <[email protected]> wrote: > > [M. Zhou] > > 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. > > That's fair - but now that Linux 6.4 is in unstable, zfs-dkms is no > longer supported and will not build. For that reason, could you update > to 2.2.0-rc3? > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel mailing list > [email protected] > > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-zfsonlinux-devel > -- Colm Buckley | [email protected]
