Intention of "headers-not-in-tirpc"?+

[Zack Weinberg]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 21 Mar 2016 07:41, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>>
>> NSS is the reason and problem.
>> Why should every other library waste time and resources to re-implement
>> the glibc NSS interface and stay in sync (and this is needed to use the
>> same NSS modules) only that glibc saves a few bytes? And yes, we really
>> speak only about a few bytes here.
>>
>> It's ok that you are for removing it from glibc, but please, then provide
>> a doable alternative solution.
>
> again, why is that our problem ?  and do you have any actual users here ?

I recall Thorsten cited some users (doing nontrivial things with rpc:
in /etc/nsswitch.conf, that is) 'way back in the first message that
started this conversation, or nearly so.

But regardless, it seems to me, Mike, that you are making the perfect
the enemy of the good.  Thorsten is the person doing all the work
here.  Thorsten says leaving the <rpc/netdb.h> interfaces in glibc
makes it easier to phase out all the *rest* of the sunrpc code in
glibc.  Can't that be good enough for now?  We can always come back to
this in a few release cycles, after the libtirpc transition for
everything else is complete.

zw