ZFS Boot Support Binding Change [PSARC/2008/301 Self Review]

[Mark A. Carlson]

Right. If ZFS was claiming that it was *not* going for POSIX compliance, 
then
we would have an architectural issue.

I see this as advice to the C-Team to not allow integration until the bugs
are fixed.

-- mark

John Plocher wrote:
> Don Cragun wrote:
>   
>>> Change the binding from "minor" to "patch".
>>>       
>> Given that ZFS does not yet conform to POSIX and UNIX standards
>> requirements 
>>     
>
>   
>> http://stds-test.sfbay/resources/brand_status.html can be used as a
>> guide to known ZFS standards conformance bugs
>>     
>
> This sounds "easy" - if the project team intends to fix these
> conformance bugs before integration, then there is no problem.
>
> If they weren't, then there is simply a TCR for them to do so.
>
> We need a response from the project team.
>
> Why is this important?   If, as Don says:
>
>   
>> ... convert an existing (standards conforming) UFS root filesystem into a
>> (non-conforming) ZFS root.  And, unlike other things that have been
>> patched back into earlier releases, according to the PSARC/2006/307
>> case materials, the "upgrade" from UFS to ZFS is one-way ...
>>     
>
> then this is a trap for the unwary - it violates the principle of
> least surprise.
>
>     -John
>
> _______________________________________________
> opensolaris-arc mailing list
> opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/opensolaris-arc/attachments/20080507/1547fff6/attachment.html>