Subject: nsswitch.conf and irs.conf
To: Noriyuki Soda <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 01/19/2003 10:59:04
>But It seems we still cannot just use the IRS library, because it
>lacks some features that nsswitch (we, SVR4, Solaris and Linux) have.
>For example, nsswitch can be configured as either CONTINUE or RETURN
>for TRY_AGAIN and UNAVAIL cases. But IRS can only act as CONTINUE
>for those cases. Right?
>IRS has some features that nsswitch doesn't have, though.
>e.g. "merge" feature for group database.
now you are talking about nsswitch.conf and irs.conf, not thread-
safeness of nsswitch() and irs-related functions. don't mix the topic
if we really need to provide backward compatibility to nsswitch.conf,
yes, we have to modify irs library to take care of syntax like
[notfound=return]. however, i'm not really convinced that it is good
to provide that level of flexibility to users. in what kind of cases
this is useful? could you provide any usage cases?