On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:24:39 -0400 Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Friday 05 June 2009 07:36:48 Jeff Layton wrote: > > 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. > > or have the configure script dump a warning whenever libtirpc is not used ... > The problem there is that these sorts of warnings tend to get lost in the noise. So then you have the situation where people aren't sure whether they built against libtirpc or not. Only running ldd against the binaries will tell you. > > 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. > > i think this is the correct behavior for unspecified configure flags In general, yes. In this case though I think it's reasonable to force people compiling the package without tirpc installed to take the conscious step to either install the right libs and headers, or to add --disable-tirpc. I think doing so will lead to a more deterministic outcome in this situation. If that's a problem however, I'm willing to listen to the reasoning and reconsider... -- Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx> -- 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
