| Message ID | 20170321193213.GA18747@waldemar-brodkorb.de |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hello, 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 ? What about instead: select BR2_PACKAGE_LIBTIRPC if !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC and adjust the .mk file accordingly. Thanks! Thomas
Hi, Thomas Petazzoni wrote, > Hello, > > 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? > What about instead: > > select BR2_PACKAGE_LIBTIRPC if !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC > > and adjust the .mk file accordingly. The idea was to entirely remove BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC in further patches. This would involve to disable deprecated RPC in internal Glibc and uClibc-ng toolchains. I think RPC support in external toolchains will disappear when GNU C library will finally remove the code. best regards Waldemar
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. Thanks! Thomas
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. Regards, Arnout
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. Regards, Yann E. MORIN.
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
diff --git a/package/autofs/0004-libtirpc-via-pkgconfig.patch b/package/autofs/0004-libtirpc-via-pkgconfig.patch new file mode 100644 index 0000000..784b4c6 --- /dev/null +++ b/package/autofs/0004-libtirpc-via-pkgconfig.patch @@ -0,0 +1,83 @@ +Use pkg-config to find libtirpc headers + +Signed-off-by: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org> + +diff -Nur autofs-5.1.2.orig/aclocal.m4 autofs-5.1.2/aclocal.m4 +--- autofs-5.1.2.orig/aclocal.m4 2016-06-15 04:40:44.000000000 +0200 ++++ autofs-5.1.2/aclocal.m4 2017-03-21 20:10:06.441615642 +0100 +@@ -411,11 +411,18 @@ + dnl -------------------------------------------------------------------------- + AC_DEFUN([AF_CHECK_LIBTIRPC], + [ ++ ++AC_PATH_PROGS(PKG_CONFIG, pkg-config, no) ++ + # save current flags + af_check_libtirpc_save_cflags="$CFLAGS" + af_check_libtirpc_save_ldflags="$LDFLAGS" +-CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -I/usr/include/tirpc" +-LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -ltirpc" ++ ++TIRPC_LIBS=`$PKG_CONFIG --libs libtirpc` ++TIRPC_FLAGS=`$PKG_CONFIG --cflags libtirpc` ++ ++CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $TIRPC_FLAGS" ++LIBS="$LIBS $TIRPC_LIBS" + + AC_TRY_LINK( + [ #include <rpc/rpc.h> ], +@@ -431,7 +438,8 @@ + if test "$af_have_libtirpc" = "yes"; then + AC_DEFINE(WITH_LIBTIRPC,1, [Define to 1 if you have the libtirpc library installed]) + AC_DEFINE(TIRPC_WORKAROUND,1, [Define to 1 to use the libtirpc tsd usage workaround]) +- TIRPCLIB="-ltirpc" ++ TIRPCINCLUDE=$TIRPC_FLAGS ++ TIRPCLIB=$TIRPC_LIBS + fi + + AC_CHECK_FUNCS([getrpcbyname getservbyname]) +@@ -439,6 +447,7 @@ + # restore flags + CFLAGS="$af_check_libtirpc_save_cflags" + LDFLAGS="$af_check_libtirpc_save_ldflags" ++ + ]) + + AC_DEFUN([AF_WITH_LIBTIRPC], +diff -Nur autofs-5.1.2.orig/configure.in autofs-5.1.2/configure.in +--- autofs-5.1.2.orig/configure.in 2016-06-15 04:40:44.000000000 +0200 ++++ autofs-5.1.2/configure.in 2017-03-20 22:01:57.191254563 +0100 +@@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ + # + AF_WITH_LIBTIRPC() + AC_SUBST(TIRPCLIB) ++AC_SUBST(TIRPCINCLUDE) + + # + # Optional include dmalloc +diff -Nur autofs-5.1.2.orig/Makefile.conf.in autofs-5.1.2/Makefile.conf.in +--- autofs-5.1.2.orig/Makefile.conf.in 2016-06-15 04:40:44.000000000 +0200 ++++ autofs-5.1.2/Makefile.conf.in 2017-03-20 21:59:38.341881802 +0100 +@@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ + + # Use libtirpc if requested and available + TIRPCLIB = @TIRPCLIB@ ++TIRPCINCLUDE = @TIRPCINCLUDE@ + + # Use dmalloc for memory debuging + DMALLOCLIB = @DMALLOCLIB@ +diff -Nur autofs-5.1.2.orig/Makefile.rules autofs-5.1.2/Makefile.rules +--- autofs-5.1.2.orig/Makefile.rules 2016-06-15 04:40:44.000000000 +0200 ++++ autofs-5.1.2/Makefile.rules 2017-03-20 22:03:25.590675167 +0100 +@@ -45,10 +45,8 @@ + CFLAGS += -D_REENTRANT -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 + LIBS += -lpthread + +-ifdef TIRPCLIB +-CFLAGS += -I/usr/include/tirpc ++CFLAGS += $(TIRPCINCLUDE) + LIBS += $(TIRPCLIB) +-endif + + ifdef DMALLOCLIB + LIBS += $(DMALLOCLIB) diff --git a/package/autofs/Config.in b/package/autofs/Config.in index 8e08357..bf1bf47 100644 --- a/package/autofs/Config.in +++ b/package/autofs/Config.in @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_AUTOFS bool "autofs" depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS_NPTL depends on BR2_USE_MMU - depends on BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC depends on !BR2_STATIC_LIBS # dlfcn + select BR2_PACKAGE_LIBTIRPC help Autofs controls the operation of the automount daemons. The automount daemons automatically mount filesystems when they @@ -15,7 +15,6 @@ config BR2_PACKAGE_AUTOFS http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/general/autofs.html -comment "autofs needs a toolchain w/ NPTL, RPC, dynamic library" +comment "autofs needs a toolchain w/ NPTL and dynamic library" depends on BR2_USE_MMU - depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS_NPTL || BR2_STATIC_LIBS || \ - !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_NATIVE_RPC + depends on !BR2_TOOLCHAIN_HAS_THREADS_NPTL || BR2_STATIC_LIBS diff --git a/package/autofs/autofs.mk b/package/autofs/autofs.mk index 23e6836..1add8b2 100644 --- a/package/autofs/autofs.mk +++ b/package/autofs/autofs.mk @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ AUTOFS_SOURCE = autofs-$(AUTOFS_VERSION).tar.xz AUTOFS_SITE = $(BR2_KERNEL_MIRROR)/linux/daemons/autofs/v5 AUTOFS_LICENSE = GPLv2+ AUTOFS_LICENSE_FILES = COPYING COPYRIGHT -AUTOFS_DEPENDENCIES = host-flex host-bison +AUTOFS_DEPENDENCIES = host-flex host-bison libtirpc host-pkgconf # For 0002-autofs-configure-check-for-clock_gettime-in-librt.patch and # 0003-configure-add-cache-variable-for-Linux-proc-filesyst.patch. AUTOFS_AUTORECONF = YES @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ AUTOFS_CONF_ENV = \ AUTOFS_CONF_OPTS = \ --disable-mount-locking \ --enable-ignore-busy \ + --with-libtirpc \ --without-openldap \ --without-sasl \ --with-path="$(BR_PATH)" \
uClibc-ng plans to remove internal RPC implementation as it is ipv4 only and can not be used for most important RPC software rpcbind and nfs-utils. musl does not implement RPC and GNU C library deprecated the internal implementation a while ago. Signed-off-by: Waldemar Brodkorb <wbx@openadk.org> --- I am planning to send patches to convert existing packages and remove the RPC internal toolchain stuff, before releasing uClibc-ng without RPC. For a smooth migration. --- package/autofs/0004-libtirpc-via-pkgconfig.patch | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ package/autofs/Config.in | 7 +- package/autofs/autofs.mk | 3 +- 3 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) create mode 100644 package/autofs/0004-libtirpc-via-pkgconfig.patch