Buildroot Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Rosin <peda@lysator.liu.se>
To: buildroot@busybox.net
Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/2] bump libtirpc to 1.0.1
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2015 11:44:08 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <563B32F8.8050607@lysator.liu.se> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151105100543.4efb53dc@free-electrons.com>


On 2015-11-05 10:05, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Peter Rosin,
>
> On Thu,  5 Nov 2015 09:30:08 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> I'd like to bump libtirpc to 1.0.1. However there is an api incompatibility
>> introduced in 0.3.2 which requires a patch to rpcbind, which I took from
oops, introduced in -> introduced since
>> upstream. The rpcbind patch make rpcbind work with either tirpc 0.3.2 or
>> 1.0.1, so I added that patch first in the series even if it might seem
>> backwards.
> Thanks for those patches. Is rpcbind the only user of libtirpc that is
> affected by the API change ?
>
> Thomas

Good question...

I think so, but who knows? Personally I would have kept libtirpc compatible (that was a
possibility), but upstream decided to make the switch since they didn't know of any users
and wanted to get in line with other tirpc implementations. Then this regression in
rpcbind was discovered, which was rather close to home...

The changed interface was thought to be only for adding custom authenticators to RPC,
something that is thought to be extremely specialized, but the rpcbind use looks like a
workaround for problems getting replies out when using libtirpc somewhat strangely
(again, I don't know rpcbind and have only had a cursory look at the code). If a package
is using libtirpc normally and do no strange things (unlike rpcbind, which probably is
quite special) and don't add its own application specific RPC authenticator, it should not
be affected. But as I said, who knows?

Fixing breakage in libtirpc users should be straightforward if any come up, and another
possibility is to add a patch to revert the final change that removed the old interface.
However, that revert is touching core areas in a number of places and is probably not
fun to keep around for any length of time. It can be added if needed, is that good
enough?

I can only find the upstream discussion in the mail archive at sf, which has a rather
sucky interface, sorry.

Cheers,
Peter

https://sourceforge.net/p/libtirpc/mailman/libtirpc-devel/thread/5630F3AA.6050201%40RedHat.com/#msg34576143

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-05 10:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-05  8:30 [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/2] bump libtirpc to 1.0.1 Peter Rosin
2015-11-05  8:30 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 1/2] rpcbind: backport adjustment to changes in libtirpc 1.0.1 Peter Rosin
2015-11-06  8:27   ` Peter Rosin
2015-11-05  8:30 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 2/2] libtirpc: bump to version 1.0.1 Peter Rosin
2015-11-08 13:30   ` Brendan Heading
2015-11-08 13:37     ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-15  7:43       ` Peter Rosin
2015-11-16 22:08         ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-24 18:43   ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-24 21:52     ` Peter Rosin
2015-11-24 22:08       ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-24 22:12         ` Peter Rosin
2015-11-25  8:05           ` Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-05  9:05 ` [Buildroot] [PATCH 0/2] bump libtirpc to 1.0.1 Thomas Petazzoni
2015-11-05 10:44   ` Peter Rosin [this message]
2015-11-06  8:06     ` Peter Rosin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=563B32F8.8050607@lysator.liu.se \
    --to=peda@lysator.liu.se \
    --cc=buildroot@busybox.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox