From: "Muntz, Daniel" Subject: RE: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in current nfs-utils? Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:17:55 -0700 Message-ID: <7A24DF798E223B4C9864E8F92E8C93EC031D1EFD@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> References: <20090605073648.5a5497b5@tlielax.poochiereds.net><200906051224.40592.vapier@gentoo.org><20090605133634.23357e8e@tlielax.poochiereds.net><200906051650.42007.vapier@gentoo.org><20090606071153.164d92dd@tlielax.poochiereds.net><7A24DF798E223B4C9864E8F92E8C93EC031D19D3@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com><20090606160230.247d3ca3@tlielax.poochiereds.net><861F88E5-EF00-48C8-8D1D-F0830D547DFA@oracle.com><7A24DF798E223B4C9864E8F92E8C93EC031D1B12@SACMVEXC1-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <20090608125957.3c8f0c95@tlielax.poochiereds.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Chuck Lever" , "Mike Frysinger" , To: "Jeff Layton" Return-path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]:53396 "EHLO mx2.netapp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753594AbZFHWRy convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jun 2009 18:17:54 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090608125957.3c8f0c95-9yPaYZwiELC+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 10:00 AM > To: Muntz, Daniel > Cc: Chuck Lever; Mike Frysinger; linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in > current nfs-utils? > > On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:46:23 -0700 > "Muntz, Daniel" wrote: > > > > > > > The reason to build without it is that libtirpc is > largely untested > > > code (on Linux), and the nfs-utils support to use TI-RPC is also > > > largely untested. I think the default config settings should > > > configure a safe, known-working configuration, not the > most advanced > > > configuration. > > > > > > As much as I like the idea of wider testing, the idea > that we happen > > > to be testing with live users is not inviting. But I > guess it's all > > > we've got at this point. > > > > It would be nice if RH had a way of testing this with > Fedora without > > making it the default in the standard nfs-utils package > until _after_ > > testing. Perhaps nfs-utils has evolved to the point where it could > > use a release-candidate model. Then all distros could pull an RC > > build if they want it, while production users could pull > the last "stable" > > release. > > This has very little to do with Red Hat. We can enable or > disable TIRPC in our own distros without making this change > upstream. The question here is whether we should make this > the default now, or does it make more sense to wait until > everything has been converted to TIRPC, and had IPv6 support > added and *then* enable it. But **IF** you had a release candidate model, then you would have a mechanism for OTHERS to pick up "pre-release" code and get the additional testing you are after. Without it, your only option is to put un/little-tested code into mainline nfs-utils (I am going on your assertion and Chuck's that this code needs more testing). I can't see any reasonable excuse (non-FUD as you say) for not doing things this way. > > I believe the latter option will be more disruptive. Phasing > support in slowly makes sense and there's an easy "fix" for > people who find they have problems with it (--disable-tirpc). > > -- > Jeff Layton >