From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 11:22:24 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] autofs: use libtirpc instead of internal C implementation In-Reply-To: <74507ead-a58c-7c03-3356-64669f7f5acf@mind.be> References: <20170321193213.GA18747@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20170321222449.5ceb21f4@free-electrons.com> <20170322020946.GF28589@waldemar-brodkorb.de> <20170322085959.587a9f22@free-electrons.com> <74507ead-a58c-7c03-3356-64669f7f5acf@mind.be> Message-ID: <20170326092224.GA3019@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net All, On 2017-03-23 22:53 +0100, Arnout Vandecappelle spake thusly: > On 22-03-17 08:59, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 03:09:46 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > > >>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 20:32:13 +0100, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > >>> > >>>> @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_AUTOFS > >>>> bool "autofs" > >>>> depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS_NPTL > >>>> depends on BR2_USE_MMU > >>>> - depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC > >>>> depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # dlfcn > >>>> + select BR2_PACKAGE_LIBTIRPC > >>> > >>> Why should we force people to use libtirpc ? > >> > >> Because the internal RPC implementation is mostly useless and > >> getting removed? > > > > I don't quite agree. The one in glibc has been used for years > > successfully, and is still useful. So even if uClibc decides to remove > > its internal RPC implementation, I'd like to give people the option to > > use the internal RPC implementation of glibc. > > > > I agree RPC support in glibc will most likely disappear at some point > > in the future, but we're not there yet. So for now, I'd prefer if we > > just took the step of dropping RPC support in uClibc, and doing the > > necessary changes in packages so that they all build/work fine with > > libtirpc. That's anyway a very good preparation step to get rid of > > internal RPC support entirely at some point in the future. > > Well, if glibc is the only one that is still going to provide native RPC, I > really don't think it's worth keeping support for it. It's not as if the 125KB > extra from libtirpc are really going to hurt someone who is using glibc, right? > And keeping the option of native RPC or libtirpc is probably going to make the > code more complicated. > > So I tend to agree with Waldemar's approach. I would say that I agree with Waldemar and Arnout. Especially since the internal RPC implementation in glibc is not even complete (not IPv6-clean for example) so it really makes sense to switch to libtirpc which is nowadays pretty much stable. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'