[Pkg-zfsonlinux-devel] About downstream patches on debian packages from zfsonlinux.org repository.

[Turbo Fredriksson]

On Aug 24, 2016, at 1:52 AM, Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez wrote:

> Also, does having support for NFS/SMB/iSCSI built-in inside ZFS allow to
> do something that can be done otherwise ?

zfs create -o sharenfs=on -o sharesmb=on filesystem
zfs create -o shareiscsi=on -V10g volume

How can this NOT be a "killer feature"??!

> Well. I don't think is so broken as you claim.

Have you spent any time on the ZoL list, the IRC channel or on the
issue tracker the last year? There's several people having a problem
with this _each month_.

> Granted. But If upstream is so seriously broken, then I very much prefer
> to either quit from this team, orphan the package, or request the
> removal of it.

Only the share{nfs,smb} is broken - the latter was a crappy design (by
me), but broken none the less. The former also a "not so good" design
(not by me :).

> I'm pretty sure that I don't want to maintain a package from a seriously
> broken upstream. Even more if is something as serious as a filesystem
> where any bug can be fatal (data loss, security breach, etc).

Ah, but this is in the USERLAND part of the code! Not in the
_filesystem_ [part of the code]. Big difference! Even if there's a
seriously, major, mega critical problem with the code, it will NEVER
put your data at risk.

The share* options is basically only a wrapper to the different commands
that deal with sharing the filesystem/volume.

And the shareiscsi supports all four of the iSCSI targets available on
Linux, which simplifies things quite a lot.

No digging through tons of documentation on how to setup a iSCSI target
etc. Worst case, you need to create ONE file (with the IQN base for your
system - but that can be autodetected/-generated so not a requirement).

"It just works" is a term thrown around a lot, but it does :).

This is the very definition of a "killer feature" if you ask me!

Besides, you don't need to manage/maintain it. I do. Just forward any
issues [I miss] to me and I'll deal with it.

> But, given that a lot of people (pretty much any non-debian user) seem
> to be using what upstream provides in production, I don't think that
> your claim of upstream being so broken reflects the reality.

It's difficult to say with 100% certainty - those that DOESN'T have problem
is in the silent, but there seems to be a lot of people having problem with
the current share* implementations.

> Also I don't think upstream lacks serious functionality.

Every single operating system (and I talk about operating systems, not
[linux] distributions here!) have a complete ZFS implementation. Except
Linux. Well, all Linux except Debian GNU/Linux.

> Otherwise I don't understand how people are happily using
> ZoL on another distros where their packages lack this patches.

They're not, that's the problem :(. They're known to use my packages on
everything from Ubuntu to Arch linux etc. Which I have stated is absolutly
unsupported, but they are happy to take the risk, just to get _my_ packages,
because they are the ONLY one that haven't had major problems for years.

I've had _one_ (serious, security) issue in my NFS rewrite. Fixed within
two-three days after report and I think one, minor, issue with the SMB
patch. None (that I can remember) regarding the iSCSI patch.

But I'm the author of these three, and I've stated all along that I will
take responsibility for them. Either for ZoL, but they've declined to
do the work and review them, or for Debian GNU/Linux.
--
God gave man both a penis and a brain,
but unfortunately not enough blood supply
to run both at the same time.
- R. Williams

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-zfsonlinux-devel/attachments/20160825/6aa49088/attachment.sig>