Re: [PATCH] mount.nfs: Don't fail mounts when /etc/netconfig is nonexistent

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 05:30:54PM -0500, Peter Staubach wrote:
> Chuck, it feels as if you are under the impression that this
> is a general purpose deployment that Steve is attempting to
> make to work.  It is not.  It is a very restricted use, ie.
> to install a system.  Thus, the resources available are very
> restricted.  The restriction is not diskspace, per se, but
> the memory footprint which would be required to hold it.

The memory footprint for /etc/netconfig?  What are the numbers here?  Is
this a real problem?  And couldn't you get most of the savings as Chuck
suggests just by removing the comments from /etc/netconfig?

> The suggestion to use the non-TI-RPC version is interesting,
> but has some very negative ramifications.  It would mean that
> we would have to test the TI-RPC flavor and the non-TI-RPC
> flavor.  It would also limit future development to that which
> could be supported via the non-TI-RPC version.  This seems
> unnecessarily limiting.
> 
> While I don't agree with what the anaconda folks have done,
> picking and choosing as they have, they have done so.  I
> think that we should work with them to figure out why they
> have chosen to do so and whether it is valid or not.

OK.

> All that said, what is the technical problem with including
> this support?  There is no possibility that "tcp" or "udp"
> will ever change meaning, at least not in our lifetimes.
> 
> The bottom line is that I could agree, that this isn't the
> most aesthetically pleasing architecture and implementation.
> However, sometimes, the code must run in a non-perfect
> world and hence, compromises must be made.

If we have to have this hack, I also wonder (with Chuck) why the same
hack couldn't be done in libtirpc itself.

--b.