On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 05:09:36 -0400 Steve Dickson <SteveD@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 11:00:41 -0700 > > "Muntz, Daniel" <Dan.Muntz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jeff Layton [mailto:jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx] > >>> Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 4:12 AM > >>> To: Mike Frysinger > >>> Cc: linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >>> Subject: Re: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in > >>> current nfs-utils? > >>> > >>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 16:50:41 -0400 > >>> Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Friday 05 June 2009 13:36:34 Jeff Layton wrote: > >>>>> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 12:24:39 -0400 Mike Frysinger 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. > >>>> the configure script knows whether it's going to be > >>> building against libtirpc. > >>>> it isnt going to happen randomly during `make`. > >>>> AC_MSG_WARNING([ > >>>> > >>>> You really should think about switching to libtirpc > >>>> > >>>> ]) > >>>> > >>>> maybe it's different in Gentoo, but people report configure > >>> warnings > >>>> all the time ;) > >>>> > >>> Well, Gentoo probably has a larger percentage of people > >>> compiling the sources. Other distros generally distribute the > >>> binaries. But to be fair, it's not unreasonable to expect > >>> people who are compiling from sources to know what they're doing. > >>> > >>>>>>> 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... > >>>> i just dont agree with having to re-run configure to "fix" > >>> a condition > >>>> that the configure script should already be able to handle. > >>> but i'm > >>>> speaking in general terms here, not specific to what you propose as > >>>> that isnt exactly the same thing. i dont feel too strongly here, > >>>> especially since it doesnt affect me in any realistic way. > >>>> -mike > >>> Ok, fair enough. I don't feel terribly strongly about this > >>> either and that is the the conventional way that configure > >>> options work (don't fail unless absolutely necessary). I'll > >>> see about coding up a patch that makes --enable-tirpc the > >>> default but falls back to legacy RPC code with a warning if > >>> TIRPC libs/headers aren't present. > >> Changing the default because the code isn't sufficiently tested strikes > >> me as a particularly bad idea. If Red Hat wants more testing, > >> distribute nfs-utils with TIRPC enabled in Fedora, and _then_ change the > >> default in nfs-utils after more testing has occurred. Delegating > >> testing to unsuspecting end-users (especially people who need to rebuild > >> in production environments) seems like an ideal way to cause real > >> problems. > >> > > > > If users have TIRPC installed on their systems, why would we want to > > avoid using it? Pieces of this code (mount.nfs, for instance) are > > pretty much complete and working. There's no real reason to build these > > apps against legacy RPC now if we can help it. > > > >> And ffs, don't change the existing configure behavior. When nfs-utils > >> is supposed to build with TIRPC (e.g., when TIRPC is the default), the > >> configure should fail if TIRPC isn't installed. Perhaps the error > >> message on failure could suggest running configure with --disable-tirpc. > >> > > > > nfs-utils is already builds with TIRPC. It also builds with legacy RPC. > > So in this discussion the first question is, "Is there some reason to > > not build against TIRPC when it's available on the machine?" > > > > Second question: "Should make configure bail out when TIRPC isn't > > available and force the user to specify --disable-tirpc on the command > > line, or should we make the build just fall back to legacy RPC when the > > right TIRPC libs/headers aren't present?" > > > > So far, I'm leaning toward "No" on the first question and to > > "automatically fall back" on the second question. > I concur on this approach... but would like to change the flavour a bit > Meaning.. Lets take out any and all references to TIRPC and replace > them with IPv6 support, since, ultimately, that's what were are talking > about... > > So, if libtirpc exists, there will be IPv6 support. If not, there will > not be IPv6 support... > Yes, eventually we'll want to make IPv6 support default to "on" when TIRPC is present. If you look at the code though, there are #ifdef's for HAVE_LIBTIRPC and IPV6_SUPPORTED. These are currently controlled by separate configure options, but you cannot build in IPv6 support without TIRPC. In the interest of phasing in this support slowly, Chuck and I are proposing that we enable TIRPC by default now, and keep IPv6 support a separate option for the time being. Eventually, we'll want to turn on IPv6 support automatically when TIRPC is available. I think it makes sense though to wait until we have some experience with TIRPC support in nfs-utils before we go all the way with turning on IPv6 support by default. -- 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
