Subject: Re: RFC: migration to a fully dynamically linked system
To: Greywolf <>
From: Rick Kelly <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/21/2001 19:00:55
Greywolf said:

>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?

This seems to be the best way to me.

>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.

The split of /lib and usr/lib actually goes back to System III or further.
SCO made their first attempt at shared libraries in SVR3. 

How well will all this work when trying to rescue a Sun 3/50 or other small
memory machine when /lib gets screwed up?

There are people using one large / partition plus swap these days. In that case
/lib could get screwed up just as easily as /usr/lib in a crash.
Rick Kelly