On Sat, 06 May 2017, Sam Kuper wrote:
...
> Given that a machine intended to run ZFS is likely to be provisioned
> with >2GB of RAM ...
debian-installer is effectively an embedded OS for the purpose of
installing Debian -- trying to squeeze the ability to build ZFS into
that is a mistake IMO.
Gi
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 05:24:48PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 03:35:52PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > On 06/05/2017, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > It would in theory be possible to arrange build and install modules
> > > during installation using the in-progress target inst
On Wed, 10 May 2017 17:24:48 +0200 Wouter Verhelst
wrote:
> On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 03:35:52PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > On 06/05/2017, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > It would in theory be possible to arrange build and install modules
> > > during installation using the in-progress target installati
On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 03:35:52PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 06/05/2017, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > It would in theory be possible to arrange build and install modules
> > during installation using the in-progress target installation (where
> > the normal toolchain packages could be installed) suc
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 06:44:11PM +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>On 05/05/2017, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> Bill McGrath's request matches my suggestion above[3],
>> and Neil McGovern's reply suggests it is already on Debian's roadmap.
>> Why, then, is this bug (Bug#861263) marked as wontfix?
>>
>> [3] https:/
On 05/05/2017, Sam Kuper wrote:
> Bill McGrath's request matches my suggestion above[3],
> and Neil McGovern's reply suggests it is already on Debian's roadmap.
> Why, then, is this bug (Bug#861263) marked as wontfix?
>
> [3] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861263#17
In the ligh
On 06/05/2017, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 22:52 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> If so, is there
>> any reason in principle why that installer could not in future be
>> distributed with the capability to (download and) compile and run ZFS,
>> and to provide the user with the option to i
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 22:52 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> If so, is there
> any reason in principle why that installer could not in future be
> distributed with the capability to (download and) compile and run ZFS,
> and to provide the user with the option to install Debian onto a ZFS
> root partition?
On 06/05/2017, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
> I would recommend the second of the following options:
>
> 1. Install using the non-free media with "Advanced options" -> "Expert
> install"
> 2. Install using the non-free media, then cleanup [...]
>
> It's faster than an "Advanced
> options" -> "Expert
On 5 May 2017 at 15:27, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>
>>> 2. Add ZFS to a Debian Installer that is not the *default* Debian
>>> Installer. Does Debian distribute such an installer, to which the
>>> facility to compil
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I shall not share my opinion of Eben Moglen, because I don't want to
> get sued. But I would say that "Eben Moglen says X" is not going to
> convince me of X.
>
> And, the FTP team has made its decision.
>
> I'm not going to argue this further.
Apologies if
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 22:52 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
> > > Please could you explain?
> >
> > I was referring specifically to the bina
P.S. Ben, thank you again for taking the time on this. It is providing
a great deal of clarity to me, and I hope that other people who also
desire a ZFS-capable Debian Installer will also find it helpful.
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
>> Please could you explain?
>
> I was referring specifically to the binary kernel modules, which have a
> mixture of CDDL and GPLv2 code.
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 21:40 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
[...]
> So, I am not sure why you say that ZFSonLinux binaries are non-free.
> Please could you explain?
I was referring specifically to the binary kernel modules, which have a
mixture of CDDL and GPLv2 code. These licences are incompatible so t
On 05/05/2017, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> The legal status of ZFSonLinux was discussed by the FTP team and DPL
>> over a long period, with input from legal counsel, resulting in a
>> decision to put it in the 'contrib' section. That decision is unlikely
>> to be re
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 20:27 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> > > 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
>> > > compromising Debian's "obviously
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 20:27 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
> > > compromising Debian's "obviously prudent" arrangement?[1] Should I CC
> > >
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> 1. Move ZFS *source* into "main". Would this be possible without
>> compromising Debian's "obviously prudent" arrangement?[1] Should I CC
>> debian-legal?
>
> This will not happen.
Forgive my ignorance, bu
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 19:50 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
> > > > > do you plan to
On 05/05/2017, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
>> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
>> > > do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
>> >
>> > ZFS bina
On Fri, 2017-05-05 at 14:26 +0100, Sam Kuper wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
> > > Dear Maintainer,
> > >
> > > do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
> >
> > ZFS binaries are not
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 19:51:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
>> Dear Maintainer,
>>
>> do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
>
> ZFS binaries are not distributable due to the licence conflict, so this
> is unlikely to hap
Control: tag -1 wontfix
On Wed, 2017-04-26 at 18:20 +0200, Timo Haas wrote:
> Package: debian-installer
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: d-i
>
> Dear Maintainer,
>
> do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
ZFS binaries are not distributable due to the licence conflict, so th
Processing control commands:
> tag -1 wontfix
Bug #861263 [debian-installer] debian-installer: zfs support
Added tag(s) wontfix.
--
861263: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=861263
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Package: debian-installer
Severity: wishlist
Tags: d-i
Dear Maintainer,
do you plan to support zfs as root filesystem in the installer?
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 9.0
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: amd64
(x86_64)
Foreign Architectures: i386
Ker
26 matches
Mail list logo
