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

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On 19 Mar 2016 13:31, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I think we should just start from scratch with working out a
> > "requirements" list.  That is, compared to stock glibc trunk today
> > configured with --enable-obsolete-rpc, exactly how do we want things
> > to be different in the end state.  That includes which things libc
> > should install and which things TI-RPC should install, and so forth.
> > Once we've reached consensus across both projects about that, then
> > we can dig into the implementation details of the libc build.
> 
> I think glibc should install as less as possible. In the end, I think
> it should only provide this functions, which requires NSS:
> 
> getrpcbyname.c, getrpcbyname_r.c, getrpcbynumber.c, getrpcbynumber_r.c,
> getrpcent.c, getrpcent_r.c
> 
> Since this is code, which only includes other glibc functions, but
> does not contain any RPC releated, and are all combined together in
> a single header file (rpc/netdb.h), I don't see there a real issue
> to seperate them.

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.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature