Hi, On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 10:39:43AM -0400, Benjamin Coddington wrote: > 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. Andreas, could you sent a proper patchset please, so upstream can have a look at it for inclusion? Regards, Salvatore
