From: Chuck Lever Subject: Re: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in current nfs-utils? Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:14:48 -0400 Message-ID: <4D090F4F-4063-429C-829B-E56A1B127D3B@oracle.com> References: <20090605073648.5a5497b5@tlielax.poochiereds.net> <20090605161027.GF10975@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Cc: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from rcsinet12.oracle.com ([148.87.113.124]:43058 "EHLO rgminet12.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752490AbZFEQPO (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:15:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090605161027.GF10975@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Jun 5, 2009, at 12:10 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 07:36:48AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: >> Eventually, we most distros are going to want to build nfs-utils >> against libtirpc in order to get IPv6 support. At some point, we'll >> probably want to make building with IPv6 support the default. In the >> meantime however, we need to get more testing exposure for the TI-RPC >> codepaths. We'll probably start building Fedora's nfs-utils with TI- >> RPC >> support in the near future. >> >> The question that Steve D. has asked is whether we should also make >> --enable-tirpc the default for the mainline nfs-utils tree? >> >> Doing this now would add wider testing exposure for these codepaths >> and >> help flush out bugs in TIRPC+IPV4 codepaths. OTOH, it means adding a >> new library dependency for packagers, or they'll need to take the >> conscious step to --disable-tirpc when they configure. >> >> We could make it so that configure looks for libtirpc and if it's not >> available, configures the build against legacy RPC interfaces. I >> think >> this is a bad idea however. While it should "just work" either way, >> there are some small behavioral differences when TIRPC support is >> built >> in. I think it's probably better to make enabling and disabling >> TIRPC a >> conscious step. >> >> Thoughts? > > Makes sense to me to have upstream defaults set to what we expect > distributions to move to, assuming there aren't known regressions. That's a big assumption, and it's exactly why we wanted to have some soak time in rawhide or Debian unstable before enabling it by default upstream. -- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com