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

Jeff Layton
2009-06-08T17:10:28Z

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 13:05:26 -0400
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

Steve asked whether we should also make it the default. He stated that
he would prefer that it was the upstream default first, but didn't NAK
turning it on in fedora if we didn't make it the default there.

So I disagree back :)

The discussion of turning this on in Fedora brought about this question
for upstream, but it's a legitimate question for upstream code
regardless of what happens with Fedora.

> > 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

--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>