On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:46:23 -0700
"Muntz, Daniel" <Dan.Muntz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The reason to build without it is that libtirpc is largely
untested code (on Linux), and the nfs-utils support to use
TI-RPC is also largely untested. I think the default config
settings should configure a safe, known-working
configuration, not the most advanced configuration.
As much as I like the idea of wider testing, the idea that we
happen to be testing with live users is not inviting. But I
guess it's all we've got at this point.
It would be nice if RH had a way of testing this with Fedora without
making it the default in the standard nfs-utils package until _after_
testing. Perhaps nfs-utils has evolved to the point where it could
use
a release-candidate model. Then all distros could pull an RC build
if
they want it, while production users could pull the last "stable"
release.
This has very little to do with Red Hat. We can enable or disable
TIRPC
in our own distros without making this change upstream. The question
here is whether we should make this the default now, or does it make
more sense to wait until everything has been converted to TIRPC, and
had IPv6 support added and *then* enable it.
I disagree.
The question about changing the upstream default came up because I
asked RH to enable this option in Fedora so we can test first. Steve
doesn't want Fedora to enable TI-RPC unless upstream has it enabled by
default.
So this is _precisely_ about why RH won't enable this in Fedora first.
I believe the latter option will be more disruptive. Phasing support
in
slowly makes sense and there's an easy "fix" for people who find they
have problems with it (--disable-tirpc).
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
