[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011, 2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]] [[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation License|/fdl]]."]]"""]] [[!tag open_issue_hurd open_issue_porting]] TI-RPC replaces glibc's Sun RPC implementation, [[!message-id "4D0632C5.1040107@RedHat.com"]]. It needs some work on our side, [[!message-id "20101214213212.GU1095@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net"]]. Then, the Hurd's [[hurd/translator/nfs]] translator and [[hurd/nfsd]] can be re-enabled, [[!message-id "87hb2j7ha7.fsf@gnu.org"]]. ## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-19 hi. I'm trying to port libtirpc to get rcpbind on hurd, and am unable to find IPV6_PORTRANGE and IPV6_PORTRANGE_LOW. is this a known problem with a known fix? what are they supposed to be ? braunr: found them described in . "The IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option and the conflict resolution rule are not defined in the RFCs and should be considered implementation dependent " hm if we have that, they're very probably not accessible from outside our network stack needed feature on hurd, in other words... why ? If I remember correctly, SO_PEERCRED is also missing? yes .. that one is important braunr: you wonder why the IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option was created? i wonder why it's needed does linux have it ? yes, linux got it. same name ? it make it possible for some services to work with some firewalls. :) yes, same name, as far I can tell. they could merely bind ports explicitely, couldn't they ? not always. or is it for servers on creation of a client socket ? see for an example I came across. i don't find these macros on linux :/ how strange. libtirpc build on linux. is there a gitweb or so somewhere ? i can't find it on sf :/ for , you mean? yes no idea. are you looking at upstream 0.2.4 or a particular debian package ? I'm looking at the debian package. let me take a look http://paste.debian.net/82971/ is my first draft patch to get the source building. ok so in src/bindresvport.c if you look carefully, you'll see that these _PORTRANGE macros are used in non linux code not very portable but it explains why you hit the problem try using #if defined (__linux__) || defined(__GNU__) also, i think we intend to implement SCM_CREDS, not SO_PEERCRED but consider we have neither for now ah, definitely a simpler fix. pere: btw, see https://lists.debian.org/debian-hurd/2010/12/msg00014.html with patch reporte.d ## IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-20 new libtirpc with hurd fixes just uploaded to debian. should fix the rpcbind build too. ## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-20 hm, rpcbind built with freshly patched libtirpc fail to work on hurd. no idea why. running 'rpcinfo -p' show 'rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: Success' o_O I have no idea how to debug it. :( anyway, I've found that rpcinfo is the broken part. rpcbind work, when I test it from a remote machine. ## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-21 failing rpcinfo -p on hurd reported as . Anyone got a clue how to debug it? ## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-03-03 I was just tipped by sesse that the hurd fix for libtirpc probably caused RC bug in nfs-common, . Have not had time to check it out more closely. ## IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-03-04 pere: I don't really see how debian/patches/05-hurd-port.diff could break Linux' libtirpc AIUI, the patch has zero effect on non-hurd builds oh wait it's simply missing a reautoconf to get HAVE_SYS_USER_H undefined in config.h.in youpi: I am quite sure I did add the required dh_autoreconf call. did you see a build log where it was missing? pere: ah, ok. Then 02-rerun-bootstrap.diff can be dropped and I don't have any further idea pere: maybe it's the autoreconf itself which broke something? could be. not quite sure how to find out. pere: what about running autoreconf on the previous (working version)? gnu_srs: sound like a good idea. perhaps a good idea to just disable the two patches as a start.