Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

Personally, I have no standing here nor there, so I won't follow your suggestion. The linux-nfs@ members would probably reply that downstream distributions are free to ship nfs over udp enabled kernels if they choose so... Response to the proposal of deprecating UDP transport

Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 14:40:26 +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general wrote: > Might worth reaching out to linux-...@vger.kernel.org mailing list instead > of Archlinux as this is upstream default behaviour. Personally, I have no standing here nor there, so I won't follow your suggestion. Th

Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

On 29/04/20, Markus Schaaf via arch-general wrote: > Am 29.04.20 um 13:44 schrieb Andy Pieters: > > > While it is relatively trivial to compile your own kernel with those > > options enabled using Arch's build system, I think you'd better talk to the > > actual people that made the change upstream

Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

Am 29.04.20 um 13:44 schrieb Andy Pieters: > While it is relatively trivial to compile your own kernel with those > options enabled using Arch's build system, I think you'd better talk to the > actual people that made the change upstream. > This change might have slipped through unnoticed. It see

Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 at 12:39, Hauke Fath wrote: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:25:59 +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos via > > The interesting question is whether Linux distributions (Arch) should > import this kernel change uncritically, and dump it on their > unsuspecting users, without so much as a warnin

Re: [arch-general] NFS "updates"?

On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 19:25:59 +0100, Leonidas Spyropoulos via arch-general wrote: > On 27/04/20, Hauke Fath wrote: >> Re-reading, this is an Arch decision -- what is the rationale? Can >> anybody point me to a related discussion? > > It's not, it just defaults to "Y", see patch in > https://gith