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-utils maintainer yet, but I could have missed it. Otherwise it looks sane to me, but I could be missing some upstream case. > 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 change 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. Ben
