RPC and IPv6

[Ulrich Drepper]

On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 03:08, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:

> If we wish that the new code should replace the current one from
> glibc, we have the following choices:

While I appreciate the work I don't like the sound of "replace".  We've
spend years fixing all the bugs in the old RPC code.  And now we should
start all over again?

> - the new code replaces the old one complete. I cannot say in the
>   moment if we are really 100% binary compatible. We should to the
>   original RPC code, but in glibc we have some enhancements.

...and bug fixes.


> - let the current code for binary compatibility and only forbid to
>   link against it, make the new code the default one. Means we have
>   the code twice.

This will only create problems.  What if a DSO and the application both
use RPC and pass objects around?


> - let the current code in libc for compatility and add the new one
>   to libnsl, like most other Unix do also.

This also doesn't work.  Existing code which uses RPC is linked against
libnsl and suddenly the implementation from libnsl is used.


Why is it necessary to use the completely different implementation?  Why
not extending/fixing the current one?

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20020530/b63cc35c/attachment.sig>