TI-RPC replaces glibc's Sun RPC implementation, id:"4D0632C5.1040107@RedHat.com".

It needs some work on our side, id:"20101214213212.GU1095@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net".

Then, the Hurd's nfs translator and ?nfsd can be re-enabled, id:"87hb2j7ha7.fsf@gnu.org".

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-19

<pere> 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?
<braunr> what are they supposed to be ?
<pere> braunr: found them described in <URL:
  http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/ip6.4.html >.
<braunr> "The IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option and the conflict resolution rule
  are not defined in the RFCs and should be considered implementation
<braunr> "
<braunr> hm
<braunr> if we have that, they're very probably not accessible from outside
  our network stack
<pere> needed feature on hurd, in other words...
<braunr> why ?
<pere> If I remember correctly, SO_PEERCRED is also missing?
<braunr> yes ..
<braunr> that one is important
<pere> braunr: you wonder why the IPV6_PORTRANGE socket option was created?
<braunr> i wonder why it's needed
<braunr> does linux have it ?
<pere> yes, linux got it.
<braunr> same name ?
<pere> it make it possible for some services to work with some
  firewalls. :)
<pere> yes, same name, as far I can tell.
<braunr> they could merely bind ports explicitely, couldn't they ?
<pere> not always.
<braunr> or is it for servers on creation of a client socket ?
<pere> see <URL:
  http://www.stacken.kth.se/lists/heimdal-discuss/2000-11/msg00002.html >
  for an example I came across.
<braunr> i don't find these macros on linux :/
<pere> how strange.  libtirpc build on linux.
<braunr> is there a gitweb or so somewhere ?
<braunr> i can't find it on sf :/
<pere> for <URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/libtirpc >, you mean?
<braunr> yes
<pere> no idea.
<braunr> are you looking at upstream 0.2.4 or a particular debian package ?
<pere> I'm looking at the debian package.
<braunr> let me take a look
<pere> http://paste.debian.net/82971/ is my first draft patch to get the
  source building.
<braunr> ok so
<braunr> in src/bindresvport.c
<braunr> if you look carefully, you'll see that these _PORTRANGE macros are
  used in non linux code
<braunr> not very portable but it explains why you hit the problem
<braunr> try using #if defined (__linux__) || defined(__GNU__)
<braunr> also, i think we intend to implement SCM_CREDS, not SO_PEERCRED
<braunr> but consider we have neither for now
<pere> ah, definitely a simpler fix.
<braunr> pere: btw, see

<pere> <URL: https://bugs.debian.org/739557 > with patch reporte.d

IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2014-02-20

<pere> new libtirpc with hurd fixes just uploaded to debian.  should fix
  the rpcbind build too.

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-02-20

<pere> hm, rpcbind built with freshly patched libtirpc fail to work on
  hurd.  no idea why.
<pere> running 'rpcinfo -p' show 'rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC:
<teythoon> o_O
<pere> I have no idea how to debug it. :(
<pere> 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

<pere> failing rpcinfo -p on hurd reported as <URL:
  http://bugs.debian.org/739674 >.  Anyone got a clue how to debug it?

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-03-03

<pere> I was just tipped by sesse that the hurd fix for libtirpc probably
  caused RC bug in nfs-common, <URL: https://bugs.debian.org/740491 >.
  Have not had time to check it out more closely.

IRC, OFTC, #debian-hurd, 2014-03-04

<youpi> pere: I don't really see how debian/patches/05-hurd-port.diff could
  break Linux' libtirpc
<youpi> AIUI, the patch has zero effect on non-hurd builds
<youpi> oh wait
<youpi> it's simply missing a reautoconf to get HAVE_SYS_USER_H undefined
  in config.h.in
<pere> youpi: I am quite sure I did add the required dh_autoreconf call.
  did you see a build log where it was missing?
<youpi> pere: ah, ok. Then 02-rerun-bootstrap.diff can be dropped
<youpi> and I don't have any further idea
<youpi> pere: maybe it's the autoreconf itself which broke something?
<pere> could be.  not quite sure how to find out.
<gnu_srs> pere: what about running autoreconf on the previous (working
<pere> gnu_srs: sound like a good idea.  perhaps a good idea to just
  disable the two patches as a start.