On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:53:22PM +0400, Andrey Chernov wrote: > On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 10:32:58AM -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > > But previous NSS variant can handle this unreadable > > > /etc/nsswitch.conf nicely, probably using defaults. > > > > I believe you are mistaken. Are you 100% certain that revision 1.10 of > > nsdispatch.c falls back to defaults if /etc/nsswitch.conf exists but is > > In new version you add > + result = errno; > if file can't be opened. I think this makes difference. Andrey, I must apologize. I just couldn't see this line for some reason :-/ Thanks for your patience in getting me to see the problem. > > ``unreadable /etc/nsswitch.conf'' is a different situation than ``no > > /etc/nsswitch.conf''. The latter means ``gimme the defaults''. The > > former means ``disable NSS''. > > You are probably right, I have no strong preferences here. It depends on > other system's historic nsswitch.conf behaviour and it will be better, if > unreadable case will be documented in nsswitch.conf(5). Currently we have: > > "If, for any reason, nsswitch.conf doesn't exist, or it has missing or > corrupt entries, nsdispatch(3) will default to an entry of ``files'' > for the requested database." > > Which not covers "unreadable" case. I think the behavior must be the same as it was previously. I believe I have fixed the problem in rev 1.12 of nsdispatch.c by removing the offending statement. In short, you are right, I am wrong, sorry for the noise :-) Cheers, -- Jacques Vidrine / nectar_at_celabo.org / jvidrine_at_verio.net / nectar_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Thu Apr 01 2004 - 09:15:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:49 UTC