You are not logged in.
Is there a good way of installing the necessary zfs/spl modules for multiple kernels? Say, the mainline kernel and the lts kernel? Every combination I try (from the archzfs repo or from the AUR) seems to list the other as a conflict. I didn't have a lot of luck with the AUR zfs-dkms package before.
Offline
At least mainline and -lts kernels can be installed together from aur withouth any problem:
$ pacman -Qqi zfs-linux zfs-linux-lts
Name : zfs-linux
Version : 0.7.1.4.12.6.1-1
Description : Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System.
Architecture : x86_64
URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/
Licenses : CDDL
Groups : archzfs-linux
Provides : zfs
Depends On : kmod spl-linux zfs-utils-common>=0.7.1 linux=4.12.6-1
Optional Deps : None
Required By : None
Optional For : None
Conflicts With : zfs-linux-git
Replaces : zfs-git
Installed Size : 963.00 KiB
Build Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 04:47:06 AM EEST
Install Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 06:00:28 AM EEST
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : Yes
Validated By : SHA-256 Sum
Name : zfs-linux-lts
Version : 0.7.1_4.9.42.1-1
Description : Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System.
Architecture : x86_64
URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/
Licenses : CDDL
Groups : archzfs-linux-lts
Provides : zfs
Depends On : kmod spl-linux-lts zfs-utils-common>=0.7.1 linux-lts=4.9.42
Optional Deps : None
Required By : None
Optional For : None
Conflicts With : zfs-linux-lts-git
Replaces : None
Installed Size : 967.00 KiB
Build Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 04:58:02 AM EEST
Install Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 06:00:30 AM EEST
Install Reason : Explicitly installed
Install Script : Yes
Validated By : SHA-256 Sum
Offline
Strictly speaking the arch linux package in the repositories tracks linux stable not linux mainline in general.
Offline
At least mainline and -lts kernels can be installed together from aur withouth any problem:
$ pacman -Qqi zfs-linux zfs-linux-lts Name : zfs-linux Version : 0.7.1.4.12.6.1-1 Description : Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System. Architecture : x86_64 URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/ Licenses : CDDL Groups : archzfs-linux Provides : zfs Depends On : kmod spl-linux zfs-utils-common>=0.7.1 linux=4.12.6-1 Optional Deps : None Required By : None Optional For : None Conflicts With : zfs-linux-git Replaces : zfs-git Installed Size : 963.00 KiB Build Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 04:47:06 AM EEST Install Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 06:00:28 AM EEST Install Reason : Explicitly installed Install Script : Yes Validated By : SHA-256 Sum Name : zfs-linux-lts Version : 0.7.1_4.9.42.1-1 Description : Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System. Architecture : x86_64 URL : http://zfsonlinux.org/ Licenses : CDDL Groups : archzfs-linux-lts Provides : zfs Depends On : kmod spl-linux-lts zfs-utils-common>=0.7.1 linux-lts=4.9.42 Optional Deps : None Required By : None Optional For : None Conflicts With : zfs-linux-lts-git Replaces : None Installed Size : 967.00 KiB Build Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 04:58:02 AM EEST Install Date : Mon 14 Aug 2017 06:00:30 AM EEST Install Reason : Explicitly installed Install Script : Yes Validated By : SHA-256 Sum
The headers conflict though.
Offline
The headers conflict though.
What requires the headers?
Offline
The headers conflict though.
They shouldn't. Specifically?
Offline
emacsomancer wrote:The headers conflict though.
They shouldn't. Specifically?
@Scimmia https://aur.archlinux.org/cgit/aur.git/ … -linux#n57
Offline
Still not seeing an ACTUAL conflict. Looks like a case of really bad packaging. That PKGBUILD is ... marginal.
Last edited by Scimmia (2017-08-14 16:44:48)
Offline
So the package zfs-linux-headers conflicts with zfs-linux-lts-headers but you are saying there is no reason for that conflict entry if I understand you correctly?
Offline
It appears to be using the full kernel release version in the path, so no, it should not have that conflict entry. If there is something that does conflict, it should be split out.
Offline
Still not seeing an ACTUAL conflict. Looks like a case of really bad packaging. That PKGBUILD is ... marginal.
These PKGBUILDs (spl-linux{-lts},zfs-linux{-lts} are little tricky: they are created with intention to build in clean chroot and push to custom repository for later use. On live system (spl|zfs)-linux{-*}-headers can be safe removed after corresponding (spl|zfs)-linux{-*) package instalation. (* = lts,zen,hardened...)
Last edited by edacval (2017-08-14 17:17:53)
Offline
Which is just crappy packaging.
Offline
Scimmia wrote:Still not seeing an ACTUAL conflict. Looks like a case of really bad packaging. That PKGBUILD is ... marginal.
These PKGBUILDs (spl-linux{-lts},zfs-linux{-lts} are little tricky: they are created with intention to build in clean chroot and push to custom repository for later use. On live system (spl|zfs)-linux{-*}-headers can be safe removed after corresponding (spl|zfs)-linux{-*) package instalation. (* = lts,zen,hardened...)
As Scimmia said...
It is not any harder to create a decent PKGBUILD for use in the AUR than it is to create a PKGBUILD for use in some arbitrary custom repo tooling which relies on a clean chroot.
If a PKGBUILD is that gross, and its author only intends it for building some custom repository, then in the general nature of things I question whether that maintainer is responsible enough to be maintaining AUR packages.
Managing AUR repos The Right Way -- aurpublish (now a standalone tool)
Offline
edacval wrote:Scimmia wrote:Still not seeing an ACTUAL conflict. Looks like a case of really bad packaging. That PKGBUILD is ... marginal.
These PKGBUILDs (spl-linux{-lts},zfs-linux{-lts} are little tricky: they are created with intention to build in clean chroot and push to custom repository for later use. On live system (spl|zfs)-linux{-*}-headers can be safe removed after corresponding (spl|zfs)-linux{-*) package instalation. (* = lts,zen,hardened...)
As Scimmia said...
It is not any harder to create a decent PKGBUILD for use in the AUR than it is to create a PKGBUILD for use in some arbitrary custom repo tooling which relies on a clean chroot.
If a PKGBUILD is that gross, and its author only intends it for building some custom repository, then in the general nature of things I question whether that maintainer is responsible enough to be maintaining AUR packages.
Well, all of this is somewhat worrying.
Is there a better way of using ZFS on Arch?
Offline