From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 26 06:44:34 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F2116A41F; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:44:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from orthanc.ca (orthanc.ca [209.89.70.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9F943D48; Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:44:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Received: from [192.168.15.2] (d216-232-211-96.bchsia.telus.net [216.232.211.96]) (authenticated bits=0) by orthanc.ca (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j7Q6iSl6043452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:44:29 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from lyndon@orthanc.ca) Message-ID: <430EBA46.2060307@orthanc.ca> Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 23:44:22 -0700 From: Lyndon Nerenberg User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tim Robbins References: <21744.1123267707@phk.freebsd.dk> <20050805214650.H46767@fledge.watson.org> <42F5AA8D.3060201@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <42F5AA8D.3060201@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on orthanc.ca Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: splitting off RPC and friends X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:44:34 -0000 > The same could be done with NIS/YP, which would allow us to slim down > libc by moving xdr & rpc into a separate librpc, and yp into a separate > libyp. RPC and XDR are far from dead. Are you sure splitting these out is wise? We have to keep the code around, for NFS if nothing else. What's the benefit of moving the routines into a separate library? This just seems to make work for Makefile maintainers. --lyndon