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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <A172CCB3-973D-4A26-A8AF-3D654F4D444F@redhat.com>
 <ZL5AfARR1rrlPEdz@eldamar.lan>
In-Reply-To: <ZL5AfARR1rrlPEdz@eldamar.lan>
From:   Andreas Hasenack <andreas@canonical.com>
Date:   Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:13:41 -0300
Message-ID: <CANYNYEF6oWx9g-qozxGsKzL2KTK0P_ZLGc7UBKDh8PU=7_GTUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Always run rpc-pipefs-generator generator (was: Re: Why keep
 var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount around?)
To:     Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>,
        Steve Dickson <steved@redhat.com>,
        Scott Mayhew <smayhew@redhat.com>,
        Ben Hutchings <benh@debian.org>, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On it, need to refresh some knowledge and think with an upstream hat on now=
 :)

On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 6:12=E2=80=AFAM Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian=
.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:39:43AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
> > 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-uti=
ls
> > maintainer yet, but I could have missed it.
> >
> > Otherwise it looks sane to me, but I could be missing some upstream cas=
e.
> >
> > > 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 ch=
ange
> > 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.
>
> Andreas, could you sent a proper patchset please, so upstream can have
> a look at it for inclusion?
>
> Regards,
> Salvatore