Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 12/21/2001 08:36:44
Why does nsswitch need to be part of a dynamic library? Why can we not
just do the lookup in the nsswitch.conf and behave accordingly?
Is this the whole point of going full-dynamic, this move to getpw*()
et al needing to use nsswitch? If so, then going full-dynamic
seems quite overblown. I posit we'd use something like an nsswitchd
or something similar. I have *never* cared for Solaris' way of
doing things, EVER. The simplicity of what we have now as it is laid
out makes much more sense.
As a SPARC owner, had I wanted something as unreliable as Solaris, I
would have installed it by now. Please don't "fix" NetBSD to behave
the same way.
How many sub-protocols for LDAP exist that we need to actually rely on
closed-source third-party software?
On Sat, 22 Dec 2001, Luke Mewburn wrote:
# Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 02:31:36 +1100
# From: Luke Mewburn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
# To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
# Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
# Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
# On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 12:22:29AM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
# > It's also not clear what going full ldd really buys us. LDAP doesn't
# > qualify since there are third-party open-source versions.
# Of course LDAP qualifies; how do callers of getpw*() (et al) access
# these "third-party open-source versions" [of] LDAP [servers] ?
# Hint: they'd most likely want to plug in via nsswitch.
NetBSD: unshackling hardware designers and users from the bondage of WinTel.