[Buildroot] [PATCH] autofs: use libtirpc instead of internal C implementation

[Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org>]

Hi,
Yann E. MORIN wrote,

> 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.

Peter, any opinion?

best regards
 Waldemar