Mo Zhou writes ("Re: ZFS in Buster"):
> I made a mistake at this point. There is no SIMD bug in zfs
> 0.7.12-2. The true bug lies in the stable kernel update that
> breaks stuff. We debian ZoL maintainers decided to do nothing
> before the Buster release, and file an RC bug against the
> kernel when 10.1 comes out.I am hoping I have misunderstood. Here is what I read from your message: * Prior to Daniel (ganc...@gmail.com)'s message of last Tuesday, the Debian ZoL maintainers were aware of this precise difficulty surrounding the upstream __*fpu* symbols and ZoL. * The Debian ZoL maintainers collectively knew that this problem would not affect buster immediately, but would very likely affect a Linux kernel version which the kernel team would want to ship in a buster point releease. * The intention seems perhaps to have been to allow this latent problem to release with buster; and, then, to use the "released" status of ZoL in buster contrib, as a lever to try to have the kernel symbol change reverted in Debian's version of a forthcoming buster Linux kernel update, in that expected buster point release. [1] * The Debian ZoL maintainers did not seek a conversation with Debian kernel maintainers or the wider Debian project about this issue. * This lack of communication was deliberate. I have a lot of respect for the energy you personally have brought to your Debian work and the contributions you have made. But I would find behaviour such as I have described, if that is what occurred, totally unacceptable. If any of us in Debian become aware that any kind of problem or adverse interaction will arise between our work, and that of other contributors, it is our duty to promptly and candidly inform those other contributors. That is true even if we think those other contributors may disagree with us, and if their likely response will be difficult for us. Indeed, if we expect that their likely response will be adverse, hiding the information is *more* rather than less serious. It is very much Not OK to try to create Facts On The Ground while our co-contributors remain in ignorance of our intent. Please tell me I have misunderstood your message. Regretfully, Ian. [1] As a matter of practical politics, I think any such strategy would be clearly doomed, and not just because of the evidence of bad faith, but also because Debian's overall attitude to GPL compliance issues like this one is, as others have noted, very firm, and because of the secondary status of contrib. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
