On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 5/12/17 12:05 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 5/11/17 6:08 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 3:57 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On 5/11/17 5:46 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> >>>>> FWIW, I've looked at ways to address this without your future work Jan, ie >>>>> backporting this feature, and ultimately have decided to *not* allow any >>>>> command line overwrite for options specified in the configuration file. So >>>>> for the backported versions of this feature a user will only be able to >>>>> overwrite if the config file is commented out or removed. >>>>> >>>>> How we end up doing this upstream may differ given we may have a way to >>>>> properly do sanity checks overall and treat "defaults" as real "defaults". >>>>> But without such mechanisms implementing a sensible way to overwrite things >>>>> in a compatible way was just crap. >>>>> >>>>> As such for the backported versions of this feature I'll make this big note >>>>> on the man page: >>>> >>>> I'm a little confused - backported from where to where? I'm not sure what >>>> a "backport" means in this context, when there is no upstream solution at this >>>> time. >>> >>> Since we're still waiting for a bit of delta before I can push this >>> work then from my development tree to a stable older release. >>> >>>>> """ >>>>> One of the uses of the configuration file is to enable distributions >>>>> to provide mkfs.xfs(8) updates from a base distribution release and enable to >>>>> create filesystems which are sure to remain supported and compatible. As such >>>>> systems with a mkfs.xfs.conf(5) file present have very likely been well thought >>>>> out, and overriding configuration file defaults is discouraged unless you >>>>> know what you are doing and are familiar with the associated risks. If you >>>>> know what you are doing, wish to waive compatibility, and wish to overwrite the >>>>> configuration file provided the best option is to either remove or uncomment >>>>> the configuration file completely as options cannot be overwritten on the >>>>> command line. >>>>> """ >>>> >>>> So are you planning a forked, non-upstream behavior for your distro? >>> >>> Right. >> >> I'm not really in a position to tell a distro what to do, other than out of >> concern for polluting user expectations with non-upstream behaviors. Which >> /is/ a concern; I'm not looking forward to complaints from your users that >> upstream has "broken" behavior w.r.t. your fork when we (finally...?) ship a >> config-file capable mkfs.xfs. >> >> i.e. you go that route, your forked behavior will differ from any behavior >> that we ever ship upstream. Your users will eventually need to adapt to >> considerably different behavior which is unique to your distro, and just to >> be clear: "but we already shipped it!" will not hold any weight whatsoever >> in future upstream behavior discussions... >> >> If you want to ship newer progs w/ older defaults, I really don't understand >> why you can't just revert the patches that added the new defaults. > > The goal is to have one package that we can distribute and update across > releases and /not/ impact the experience for the user. We'd ship the > config file with the release as a separate package and could update > xfsprogs at will. > > I don't like the idea that the config file is the "one true" config > file, though. The user should still be able to override options on the > command line. The divergence from the upstream package should be > limited *only* to the defaults, not to the user experience. > > I'm fine having this depend on Jan's work to make the defaults more > sane. This is a wish-list item for us and it doesn't need to land tomorrow. Perfect! > I really think the way it should work is as if the options from the > config file override the built-in options in the same way specifying > them on the command line would. I'm glad we all seem to agree with this. > Subsequently, options on the actual > command line override those. Likewise. > This seems to be the path to least user > surprise. The weirdness with specifying units on the command line > affecting other options may make this a little more tricky than it's > laid out here, Indeed, also, other than the built-in structural sub params checks (respec, conflicts, min, max), we have other sanity checks which run after command line processing, my point was to highlight that these probably should be helpers and we should be able to run this at any given time after any new input is given. > but the principle should be to surprise the user the > least. Great. > Having this weird divergent "sorry you have a config file and > can't override anything anymore" violates that. mkfs should issue a > message like "Using built-in defaults" or "Using defaults from <config > path>" so it's clear, especially for user reports, where the defaults > are coming from if there is unexpected behavior. Makes sense. I'm afraid then to get this right and do it properly xfsprogs is just a bit long way before it can be done and this will just have to wait a bit more. Luis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
