Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Luke Mewburn <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-userlevel
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 <>
# To: Greywolf <>
# Cc:
# 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.