Re: should we make --enable-tirpc the default in current nfs-utils?

Chuck Lever
2009-06-08T17:05:49Z

On Jun 8, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 08:46:23 -0700
> "Muntz, Daniel" <Dan.Muntz@netapp.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The reason to build without it is that libtirpc is largely
>>> untested code (on Linux), and the nfs-utils support to use
>>> TI-RPC is also largely untested. I think the default config
>>> settings should configure a safe, known-working
>>> configuration, not the most advanced configuration.
>>>
>>> As much as I like the idea of wider testing, the idea that we
>>> happen to be testing with live users is not inviting. But I
>>> guess it's all we've got at this point.
>>
>> It would be nice if RH had a way of testing this with Fedora without
>> making it the default in the standard nfs-utils package until _after_
>> testing. Perhaps nfs-utils has evolved to the point where it could
>> use
>> a release-candidate model. Then all distros could pull an RC build
>> if
>> they want it, while production users could pull the last "stable"
>> release.
>
> This has very little to do with Red Hat. We can enable or disable
> TIRPC
> in our own distros without making this change upstream. The question
> here is whether we should make this the default now, or does it make
> more sense to wait until everything has been converted to TIRPC, and
> had IPv6 support added and *then* enable it.

I disagree.

The question about changing the upstream default came up because I
asked RH to enable this option in Fedora so we can test first. Steve
doesn't want Fedora to enable TI-RPC unless upstream has it enabled by
default.

So this is _precisely_ about why RH won't enable this in Fedora first.

> I believe the latter option will be more disruptive. Phasing support
> in
> slowly makes sense and there's an easy "fix" for people who find they
> have problems with it (--disable-tirpc).

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com