On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 07:31:37AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:21 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:51:03PM +, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> > > Good morning!
> > >
> > > zfs-fuse is
On Wed, Aug 10, 2022 at 7:21 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:51:03PM +, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> > Good morning!
> >
> > zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047144
>
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:51:03PM +, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> Good morning!
>
> zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047144
>
> I've been banging my head on it for a long time, to no avail. I can get
> aro
On 09/08/2022 20:17, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
+ export CCFLAGS=-O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects -fexceptions -g
-grecord-gcc-switches
Export must be quoted. GCC compiler options - must not.
Try removing optim='%{optflags}' from your SPEC. It should automatically
pick flags from $CCFLAGS.
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, August 9th, 2022 at 1:31 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:51:03PM +, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
>
> > Good morning!
> >
> > zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
> >
> > http
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 04:51:03PM +, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
> Good morning!
>
> zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047144
>
> I've been banging my head on it for a long time, to no avail. I can get
> aro
ipe -Wall -std=c99 -Wno-switch -Wno-
> > unused
> > -Wno-missing-braces -Wno-parentheses -Wno-uninitialized -Wcast-
> > align
> > -fno-strict-aliasing -D_GNU_SOURCE -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -
> > D_REENTRANT
> > -DTEXT_DOMAIN=\"zfs-fuse\" -ggdb -DDEBUG
--- Original Message ---
On Tuesday, August 9th, 2022 at 12:06 PM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> On 09/08/2022 18:51, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
>
> > zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
>
>
> gcc -o cmd/mount_zfs/mount_zfs.o -c "-O2 -f
On 09/08/2022 18:51, Gwyn Ciesla via devel wrote:
zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
gcc -o cmd/mount_zfs/mount_zfs.o -c "-O2 -flto=auto -ffat-lto-objects
-fexceptions -g -grecord-gcc-switches -pipe -Wall
-Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-Wp,-D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS -
Good morning!
zfs-fuse is FTBFS starting with f36.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2047144
I've been banging my head on it for a long time, to no avail. I can get around
the SConstruct failure by removing some environment variables, and then I hit a
linking issue I can'
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56:50AM +0100, Germano Massullo wrote:
> After having dealt for the n-th time with libvirt dependencies messing up
> [1] with zfs packages installed from ZFS On Linux repository, I wondered if
> we could just include them in Fedora repository.
> They ar
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 10:28:18AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56:50AM +0100, Germano Massullo wrote:
> > After having dealt for the n-th time with libvirt dependencies
> > messing up [1] with zfs packages installed from ZFS On Linux
> > repo
On 15/02/2022 00:56, Germano Massullo wrote:
but since ZFS On Linux provide zfs-dkms package, I think this should
avoid any possible legal trouble between Linux kernel licence and ZFS
licence.
Fedora doesn't allow packaging of any third-party Linux kernel modules.
--
Sincerely,
V
On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:56:50AM +0100, Germano Massullo wrote:
> After having dealt for the n-th time with libvirt dependencies
> messing up [1] with zfs packages installed from ZFS On Linux
> repository, I wondered if we could just include them in Fedora
> repository.
> They
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 6:57 PM Germano Massullo
wrote:
>
> After having dealt for the n-th time with libvirt dependencies messing
> up [1] with zfs packages installed from ZFS On Linux repository, I
> wondered if we could just include them in Fedora repository.
> They are no
After having dealt for the n-th time with libvirt dependencies messing
up [1] with zfs packages installed from ZFS On Linux repository, I
wondered if we could just include them in Fedora repository.
They are not in the Fedora Forbidden Items [2] list.
Fedora Wiki ZFS page [3] says:
"F
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
Does Oracle include ZFS in
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
>>> wrote:
>
Am 16.01.2016 um 22:07 schrieb Neal Gompa:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
> wrote:
>> Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
>
> No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
> is a distinction betw
the next time as Fedora legal directly instead repeat the same
discussion again (it's not the first time this topic appeared) where
people in the thread even point to "Oracle Linux" with "but they do too"
while Orcale holds all copryrights and patents in ZFS af
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga
wrote:
> Does Oracle include ZFS in their ISO by default?
No, and as far as I know they don't contribute to ZFS on Linux. There
is a distinction between ZFS and OpenZFS that's kinda important. ZFS
on Linux is based on OpenZFS, not
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I
> was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not,
> simply that any inclusion in Fedora would need approval of Fedora legal
> and continuing to post a
verything you stated, except I would
> change the sentence to read: "The benchmark if it's permissible..."
> Fedora has it's own rules, but when you use the term "legal" the
> connotation is that the other distributions which are distributing ZFS
> are
gt; academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
>>> commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
>>> is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
>> and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
> D
ould
change the sentence to read: "The benchmark if it's permissible..."
Fedora has it's own rules, but when you use the term "legal" the
connotation is that the other distributions which are distributing ZFS
are breaking the law
nonsense
if it comes to law topics i
ible..."
Fedora has it's own rules, but when you use the term "legal" the
connotation is that the other distributions which are distributing ZFS
are breaking the law. Fedora cannot make that determination; and blanket
statements like that lead to FUD and misquotes.
If Fedora
viously stated, IMO
> >> BTRFS is a much better choice. My point was simply that I don't
> >> believe saying it would be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a
> >> Linux distribution is one of them. If it were, I can't imagine
> >> Canonical would be
tated, IMO BTRFS is a much
>>> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would
>>> be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribution is one of them.
>>> If it were, I can't imagine Canonical would be doing it.
>>
>>
that I don't believe saying it would
>> be a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribution is one of them.
>> If it were, I can't imagine Canonical would be doing it.
>
> Canonical also has no qualms shipping the NVidia driver, which has the exact
> same licensin
Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> Fedora has it's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm
> perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much
> better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would
> be a GPL violatio
's own rules and can ship or not ship what they want. I'm
perfectly fine with that. As I previously stated, IMO BTRFS is a much
better choice. My point was simply that I don't believe saying it would be
a GPL violation to include ZFS in a Linux distribution is one of them. If
Hi
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
Kevin, I don't believe that is the case in this instance. No one is
> talking about mixing code. If you do have something however specifically
> regarding the FSF stance on
> ZFS, I'd like to read it - I've s
in, I don't believe that is the case in this instance. No one is
talking about mixing code. If you do have something however specifically
regarding the FSF stance on
ZFS, I'd like to read it - I've searched and haven't been able to find
anything. As I previously mentioned, one
Reindl Harald wrote:
> a standalone software with CDDL is a different topic
[snip]
> no, but when you link that incompatible code with the kernel which is
> GPLv2 code it's a complete different topic
Right. See also:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools
for another case where an
ZFS on Linux: Copyright and Licensing Issues (pdf created april 2013)
This was written by a lawyer, but the disclaimer is this is a cursory
evaluation, not legal advice.
http://www.rtt-law.com/public/files/docs/Williams%20-%20Software%20copyrights%20white%20paper.pdf
But I still predict bigger
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> LLNL is still actively involved in the ZFS on Linux project, so they
> are still doing something with it.
>
Correct, and that can be discovered with a Google search - which found this:
*https://events.linuxfoundation.org/sites/eve
er off using the existing ZFS repo
or contacting rpmfusion about it.
To be clear, maintainers would need to be willing to deal with any and
all kernel issues reported with ZFS loaded. We cannot staff the
existing "next-generation" filesystem that is already upstream, let
alone another
e not familiar with this, there are two levels of
(then) Sun filesystems involved. They use many ZFS filesystem (pool)
instances to back the Lustre parallel filesystem. ZFS replaces the
original Lustre ext-ish stuff. See the history in
<http://zfsonlinux.org/docs/LUG11_ZFS_on_Linux_for_Lustre.p
o be maintained as a separate kernel package to
>> make sure that the kernel version tracked is supported by ZFS.
>
> This should not be necessary, as our kernel is very close to mainline,
> making it quite easy for kmod authors to target.
>
>> B - Be prepared to support a f
tory is an organization founded by
the University of California to do research and development for
academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
Please do som
gt;>
>>>>
>>>> Well, if Lawrence Livermore is doing it, and Canonical apparently plans
>>>> to do it, it probably would be a good idea to get a determination from
>>>> the legal team
>>>
>>>
>>> who is "Lawrence Li
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
> Well - If there was to be a plan, it would have to start with RH legal
> making that determination would it not?
>
> Could FESCO or the other council (sorry it escapes me ATM) take this up as a
> meeting item? Is it worth presenting for a lega
bly would be a good idea to get a determination from
>>> the legal team
>>
>>
>> who is "Lawrence Livermore"?
>>
>
> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by
> the University of California to do research and development for
&g
e going to start building a kernel with nodebug
> turned off AND if it needs to be maintained as a separate kernel package to
> make sure that the kernel version tracked is supported by ZFS.
This should not be necessary, as our kernel is very close to mainline,
making it quite easy for
Reindl Harald writes:
>>> who is "Lawrence Livermore"?
>>
>> Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by
>> the University of California to do research and development for
>> academic and government purposes. The US Department
Zach Villers writes:
> I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support
> in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a
> nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and
> zfs/spl packages maybe even as
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 05:07:57PM -0500, Zach Villers wrote:
> A - determine with we were going to start building a kernel with nodebug
> turned off
Why?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
would have to;
A - determine with we were going to start building a kernel with nodebug
turned off AND if it needs to be maintained as a separate kernel package to
make sure that the kernel version tracked is supported by ZFS.
B - Be prepared to support a filesystem that needs modules build by DKMS
> On 14 Jan 2016, at 11:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long
>>> before
>>> that thread started
>>
>> I find this chal
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long
>> before
>> that thread started
>
> I find this challenging to believe.
>
>> CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - peri
I think someone needs to agree to become the maintainer for such a
package, correct? Who's willing to do this?
I haven't tested ZoL on my UEFI+Secure Boot NUC yet, but my
expectation is that this kernel module isn't going to be signed by
anything trusted, so it'd fail to load. If that's true, ther
Am 14.01.2016 um 20:35 schrieb Michael Catanzaro:
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long
before
that thread started
I find this challenging to believe.
i don't care what you believe
CDDL is incompatible with
Am 14.01.2016 um 20:34 schrieb Gerald B. Cox:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote:
ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it
is licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL
Harald, you missed the point
On Thu, 2016-01-14 at 20:24 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> likely i did much more research than you can even imagine long
> before
> that thread started
I find this challenging to believe.
> CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 - period
Did you read the web site at all? The argument is that it can be
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>
> ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is
> licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL
Harald, you missed the point. We all understand it cannot be included in
the kernel - we're talking about
Am 14.01.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Bill Nottingham:
Bill, your maildomain is burned and the only reason that your mails
appear here is there the mailing list is whitelisted based on SPF
1.5
URIBL_SBL_A Contains URL's A record listed in the
SBL blocklist [URIs: splat.cc]
1.5
URIBL_SBL Contains
elopment for
academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZFS on Linux codebase.
and they build a large, genral purpose, linux distribution?
Please do some research before actual
;
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is an organization founded by
the University of California to do research and development for
academic and government purposes. The US Department of Energy
commissioned them to port ZFS to Linux quite a long time ago[0], which
is the foundation of the current ZF
f Lawrence Livermore is doing it, and Canonical apparently
plans to do it, it probably would be a good idea to get a
determination from the legal team. I don't care one way or another,
I use BTRFS - but we shouldn't be saying there are license issues if
there aren't.
ably would be a good idea to get a determination from the
> legal team. I don't care one way or another, I use BTRFS - but we
> shouldn't be saying there are license issues if there aren't.
I also found this: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ZFS
ZFS is licensed under the CDDL
nation from
the legal team
who is "Lawrence Livermore"?
is Canonical located in the US? no!
is Redhat located in the US? yes!
you see the difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is
lice
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO
> who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of.
>
> We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the kernel to
> the
> lega
Gerald B. Cox (gb...@bzb.us) said:
> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS support may ever get
> > into Fedora:
>
>
> I originally believed it was simply a licensing issue
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
>
> Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS support may ever get
> into Fedora:
I originally believed it was simply a licensing issue that was preventing
the inclusion in Fedora, but apparently that isn
gt; > in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create
> maybe a
> > nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and
> zfs/spl
> > packages maybe even as a copr repo?
> >
>
> Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS s
On 14 January 2016 at 08:58, Zach Villers wrote:
> I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support
> in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a
> nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and zfs/spl
&
I understand. My thought was, that there seems to be a push to add support
in Debian and Ubuntu. Would it now be possible/make sense to create maybe a
nodebug kernel package based on a stable kernel supported by ZFS and
zfs/spl packages maybe even as a copr repo?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:04 AM
On 01/14/2016 03:26 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
> Now that Debian has added zfs support to their experimental branch;
> https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zfs-linux_0.6.4.2-1.html
I don't know where you got this information. If a package is in NEW, it
is not yet part of Debian. In fac
Now that Debian has added zfs support to their experimental branch;
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/zfs-linux_0.6.4.2-1.html is there a
possibility that Fedora could add support/packages as well?
Regards,
Zach #aikidouke
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
I have tried it. I don't like messing with dkms during upgrades. I remembered
MM saying something about their being conversations about the license issue
that were encouraging during an interview after the F22 release and wondered if
there was any follow up.
*apologies to MM if my recollection
Have you already tried their Fedora repository?
http://zfsonlinux.org/fedora.html
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Zach Villers wrote:
> It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
>
> Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
> fedora repos?
No.
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Zach Villers
wrote:
> It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
>
> Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
> fedora repos?
>
>
Has the license changed? I thought that was the reason it
It's been a few months since I've seen any mention of this.
Has there been any change in the legal status of bring ZFS to official
fedora repos?
Regards,
Zach
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Con
75 matches
Mail list logo
