Re: Intention of "headers-not-in-tirpc"?+

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 21 Mar 2016 07:41, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > why ?  these have 0 value outside of rpc related code, and libtirpc
> > already has implementations for them.  why should glibc continue to
> > waste space on them ?  the NSS indirection is not a compelling reason
> > imo.
> 
> NSS is the reason and problem.
> Why should every other library waste time and resources to re-implement
> the glibc NSS interface and stay in sync (and this is needed to use the
> same NSS modules) only that glibc saves a few bytes? And yes, we really 
> speak only about a few bytes here.
> 
> It's ok that you are for removing it from glibc, but please, then provide
> a doable alternative solution.

again, why is that our problem ?  and do you have any actual users here ?
we've already said RPC code is dead to us and it needs to go.  just because
we happened to provide a (rarely used) nss indirection is not interesting.
if you think it's a killer feature, then get it implemented in the library
that's replacing it (i.e. libtirpc).

alternative C libraries (e.g. uClibc/musl/dietlibc) have yet to see any
requests for these things.  can you cite equiv functionality in other OS's
either (like Solaris) ?
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature