Am I way off base here?

[Sander Vesik]

Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 04:36:45PM -0800, Galen Sampson wrote:
>> I have been reading these threads on current.  I did not get understand 
>> that was your arguement from what you posted there.  Your initial post 
>> starting this thread did not enlighten me either (which asks if there is 
>> something wrong with an IPC approach).  If your arguement was clear and 
>> I missed it then you should entertain the possiblity that other missed 
>> it as well.  Their reactions may have been strong since they may have 
>> heavily invested time and effort into something that they mistakenly 
>> think you are putting down that work.
> 
> The bad points of the current NSS implementation for FreeBSD and Linux
> are (a) its dependency on dlopen() and (b) that it's running in the

The dependency of dlopen() is only a problem if "static" executables
cannot use dlopen(). There is no imperative for this being the case.

[snip]

> 
> The question of dynamic root is an interesting one without
> NSS and PAM. I like the idea, since it saves a considerable
> amount of space in /, but I would force its use. For a server
> I would deploy a static root for the fall-back safety in
> emergency situations. But the main problem is not having
> dynamic root for NSS, it is having _no static programs at all_.
> Since with the current implementation (and supposedly all
> practical) a static program cannot fully employ NSS.
> 

"supposedly not practical" is incorrect. A libdl.a would be both
a feasible and practical thing to implement. The drawbacks of 
implementing such are not sever enough to make in unfeasible/impractical.

-- 
	Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++