static binaries vs. NSS

[Andreas Jaeger]

Markus Schoder <markus@gammarayburst.de> writes:

> I think the possibility to deploy statically linked binaries that do not
> depend on the libc of the target system is very valuable.
>
> The fact that this is currently not possible due to the NSS
> implementation makes me wonder why this design was chosen.  I could

Note that on Solaris you cannot use static binaries at all due to
NSS.  Under Linux you can use them but just have to keep the
restrictions in mind.

> instead imagine say a name service daemon that would be queried for name
> lookup.  This would nicely decouple the libc versions of the binary and
> the target system.

But this would enforce a daemon running everytime and you might not
have this one in a chroot environment or at system bootup.

> Of course the protocol would need to be designed in such a way that it
> is very stable -- but this seems achievable if some extension mechanism
> is built into it.
>
> I hope I am making some sense but I am getting tired of static binaries
> crashing left and right.

Don't use them ;-)

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/attachments/20030804/d162aa4b/attachment.sig>