Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 358697 - New package: sys-fs/zfs-fuse
Summary: New package: sys-fs/zfs-fuse
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: New packages (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal with 2 votes (vote)
Assignee: Default Assignee for New Packages
URL: http://zfs-fuse.net/releases/0.7.0
Whiteboard:
Keywords: EBUILD
: 284369 362431 398217 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 325331 332395 388741 401339
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2011-03-13 13:23 UTC by Marcin Mirosław
Modified: 2017-12-22 17:46 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments
ebuild for new releas 0.7.0 (zfs-fuse-0.7.0.ebuild,1.29 KB, text/plain)
2011-03-14 16:29 UTC, Stefan G. Weichinger
Details
updated ebuild for 0.7.0 (zfs-fuse-0.7.0-r1.ebuild,1.52 KB, text/plain)
2011-03-14 16:52 UTC, Stefan G. Weichinger
Details
checking out the already patched maint-branch out of their git-repo (zfs-fuse-0.7.0-r2.ebuild,2.61 KB, text/plain)
2011-03-15 19:33 UTC, Stefan G. Weichinger
Details
zfs-fuse-0.7.0 (zfs-fuse-0.7.0-r2.ebuild,2.59 KB, text/plain)
2011-03-15 20:12 UTC, Stefan G. Weichinger
Details

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Marcin Mirosław 2011-03-13 13:23:51 UTC
Many changes.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-03-14 16:29:02 UTC
Created attachment 265845 [details]
ebuild for new releas 0.7.0

working ebuild w/ small warnings regarding use of "BuildDir()" in SConscript files.
init-script files/zfs-fuse is the same as in the current 0.6.9-r1 in portage.
Comment 2 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-03-14 16:52:38 UTC
Created attachment 265849 [details]
updated ebuild for 0.7.0

removed warnings by patching the SConscript-files.
Comment 3 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-03-15 19:33:12 UTC
Created attachment 266009 [details]
checking out the already patched maint-branch out of their git-repo

It builds OK here without those scons-warnings, pls someone test it ...
Comment 4 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-03-15 20:12:24 UTC
Created attachment 266023 [details]
zfs-fuse-0.7.0

maint-branch, correction regarding initd-script
Comment 5 Marcin Mirosław 2011-03-15 21:45:18 UTC
As i can see this is live ebuild, not ebuild for version 0.7.0 . And still doesn't respect CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/CC. Patch from bug #332395 , with small changes, could solve this problem. (btw, i'll try refresh those patch).
Comment 6 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-04-07 11:25:26 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> As i can see this is live ebuild, not ebuild for version 0.7.0 . And still
> doesn't respect CFLAGS/LDFLAGS/CC. Patch from bug #332395 , with small changes,
> could solve this problem. (btw, i'll try refresh those patch).

Marcin, pls check #362431 as well, I tried to add your patch there.
Comment 7 Samuli Suominen gentoo-dev 2011-04-24 15:07:55 UTC
*** Bug 362431 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 8 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-07-20 19:45:02 UTC
Just bumping: Who waits for whom to do what to get zfs-fuse-0.7.0 into portage?
Comment 9 Leho Kraav (:macmaN @lkraav) 2011-07-20 19:50:21 UTC
been running like stable for me for months off my x86 overlay. not that this answers the bump question. :)
Comment 10 Stefan G. Weichinger 2011-07-20 20:24:06 UTC
(In reply to comment #9)
> been running like stable for me for months off my x86 overlay. not that this
> answers the bump question. :)

stable here as well for months, just as feedback to the devs.
bump-q still open, yes ;-)
Comment 11 Samuli Suominen gentoo-dev 2012-01-09 09:32:01 UTC
*** Bug 398217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Richard Yao gentoo-dev 2012-01-09 18:14:10 UTC
What is keeping this out of the main tree?
Comment 13 Navid Zamani 2012-01-15 17:27:32 UTC
Weird. How come this is still not in the tree, after nearly a year?

@"Christian Parport": Is there something we can do to help?
Comment 14 Richard Yao gentoo-dev 2012-01-15 20:09:18 UTC
(In reply to comment #13)
> Weird. How come this is still not in the tree, after nearly a year?
> 
> @"Christian Parport": Is there something we can do to help?

Samuli Suominen masked sys-fs/zfs-fuse-0.6.9 for removal around the time of my previous comment citing several bug reports, including this one.

/usr/portage/profiles/package.mask:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
# Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> (09 Jan 2012)                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
# Fails to compile against recent glibc and multiple other issues.                                                                                                                                                                                                             
# No maintainer to take care of the package. Removal in 30 days.                                                                                                                                                                                                               
# Bugs 325331, 284369, 380749, 388741, 381539, 358697, and 332395.

At this point, I have mostly switched to using the 9999 ebuild for the ZFS kernel modules from the pinkbyte overlay, but perhaps this could be made a tracker bug for the inclusion of sys-fs/zfs-fuse-0.7.0. That would enable users of ZFS-Fuse to coordinate efforts to resolve the issues here.
Comment 15 Navid Zamani 2012-01-15 20:27:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #14)
> At this point, I have mostly switched to using the 9999 ebuild for the ZFS
> kernel modules from the pinkbyte overlay[.]

Just tried that, and 
> configure: error: 
>                 *** Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT which is not supported.
>                 ** You must rebuild your kernel without this option.

So it’s useless on any modern system. :/
(The “sping” overlay has a zfs-9999 too, but it also doesn’t compile, and for harder to fix reasons.)

Seems there is no ZFS on Linux. :(
Comment 16 Richard Yao gentoo-dev 2012-01-15 20:54:07 UTC
(In reply to comment #15)
> (In reply to comment #14)
> > At this point, I have mostly switched to using the 9999 ebuild for the ZFS
> > kernel modules from the pinkbyte overlay[.]
> 
> Just tried that, and 
> > configure: error: 
> >                 *** Kernel built with CONFIG_PREEMPT which is not supported.
> >                 ** You must rebuild your kernel without this option.
> 
> So it’s useless on any modern system. :/
> (The “sping” overlay has a zfs-9999 too, but it also doesn’t compile, and for
> harder to fix reasons.)
> 
> Seems there is no ZFS on Linux. :(

That is issue 83 at the ZFS On Linux bug tracker:

https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/83

As a workaround, you can set CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. That setting was introduced after CONFIG_PREEMPT wiith the claim that it made things better for people doing low-latency audio work. I have been using it for a while with no discernible increase in desktop performance, so I suspect that you could use it until the issue in the ZFS kernel module is fixed.
Comment 17 Navid Zamani 2012-01-15 21:00:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #16)
> As a workaround, you can set CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY. That setting was
> introduced after CONFIG_PREEMPT wiith the claim that it made things better for
> people doing low-latency audio work. I have been using it for a while with no
> discernible increase in desktop performance, so I suspect that you could use it
> until the issue in the ZFS kernel module is fixed.


Very good. :) I do audio work, but only on Windows (because of the lack of the software on Linux :/), so this is welcome. :)
Comment 18 Richard Yao gentoo-dev 2012-01-15 21:33:17 UTC
Just as a clarification, I meant to write "no discernible decrease in desktop performance", not "no discernible increase in desktop performance". I realized this after Navid's response.

Also, while I am using CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY on my desktop, I have not yet switched to using ZFS as my root filesystem. I have been working toward getting a server with advanced format drive to boot off a raidz2 array with ashift=12..

Zachary Bedell did some work on getting Gentoo to boot off ZFS last year, but his overlay is mostly broken with the exception of his genkernel-9999 ebuild. Currently, there are numerous issues that occur when trying to do a new stage3 install on ZFS. After I have my server booting off ZFS, I will try writing some documentation for people interested in booting off ZFS.
Comment 19 Samuli Suominen gentoo-dev 2012-02-26 17:56:25 UTC
*** Bug 284369 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 Navid Zamani 2012-02-26 18:06:15 UTC
(In reply to comment #18)
BTW: I noticed there is a full CONFIG_PREEMPT. Why not select that on a desktop system?
Comment 21 Richard Yao gentoo-dev 2012-02-26 23:59:17 UTC
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #18)
> BTW: I noticed there is a full CONFIG_PREEMPT. Why not select that on a desktop
> system?

CONFIG_PREEMPT and CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY take different approaches toward implementing kernel preemption. Right now, the ZFSOnLinux code is incompatible with the approach taken by CONFIG_PREEMPT.