Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
To:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Cc:     Andreas Hasenack <andreas@canonical.com>,
        Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>,
        Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>,
        Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Always run rpc-pipefs-generator generator (was: Re: Why keep
 var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount around?)
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:39:43 -0400
Message-ID: <A172CCB3-973D-4A26-A8AF-3D654F4D444F@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZKpkDG2kTWVFSNiZ@eldamar.lan>
References: <CANYNYEFSdBua3Ay6jGk2cacossVJ8_CzDgDBnFCjXfk5XSoGEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <EE39279C-4E40-48C8-ABC9-707EB1AD6D79@redhat.com>
 <7bfafe56-0c13-a32d-093b-4d3684c4f2c7@redhat.com>
 <CANYNYEEA1CHwvZhrr2W0-BcGR1Rm50QSTdHwb0pygz4z0ZY=uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZKpkDG2kTWVFSNiZ@eldamar.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On 9 Jul 2023, at 3:38, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:

> Hi Steve,

...

> FWIW, in Debian we have applied the respective change. The idea would
> be to only depend on a single mechanism for setting up the mounts
> rather than a combination of the two (the generator and the static
> mount unit). For this reason we have applied the attached patch, and
> are not installing the units that we will let the generator produce,
> that is var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount and rpc_pipefs.target
>
> We in Debian for long have diverged too much from you upstream,
> causing that we lacked behind several new upstream version and stuck
> with old versions in stable releases. We want to avoid running into
> that again in future. So if this make sense to you, would you apply
> the same (or as you prefer similar) change to you upstream?
>
> On one side so you could apply Andreas Hasenack patch, secondly
> installing the var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount and rpc_pipefs.target
> could be dropped (note no changes to the other units needed as the
> repsective needed dependencies are generated by the systemd
> generator).
>
> Ben, Andreas, please add what else is needed from your point of view
> please!

I don't think I've seen the PATCH land on the list addressed to nfs-utils
maintainer yet, but I could have missed it.

Otherwise it looks sane to me, but I could be missing some upstream case.

> Thanks a lot for considering this. If you have any suggestion further
> how we can unify the Debian downstream to you upstream, let us know
> please.

At Red Hat, we use "upstream first" as a leading principle.  If this change
makes sense for upstream, send Adreas' patch along and I am sure Steve D will
consider it or let us know why its not acceptible for upstream.

Ben