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. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
