7 ms·

I mean, that is fine and all, but it doesn't really matter for making the software run correctly on systems that currently exist.

• matheusmoreira 1y ago
  It works fine on current Linux systems. We can have freestanding executables that talk to Linux directly and link against zero system libraries. It's just that those executables are going to have to resolve names all by themselves. Chances are they aren't going to do it exactly like glibc does. That may or may not be a problem.
  • o11c 1y ago
    Historically, when DNS breaks in a not-glibc environment, it's very often found to in fact be a violation of some standard by the not-glibc, rather than a program that fails to document a glibc dependency.
    • fc417fc802 1y ago
      Just connect to the service running on localhost ... I'm curious. Why isn't getaddrinfo implemented in a similar manner to the loaders that graphics APIs use? Shouldn't that functionality be the responsibility of whatever resolver has been installed?
      • o11c 1y ago
        That is how `getaddrinfo` works under GLIBC; it's called NSS. The problem (well, one of them) is the non-GLIBC implementations that say "we don't need no stinkin' loader!"
        • matheusmoreira 1y ago
          The problem is people delete glibc and are surprised when glibc features are missing. The only point I'm making is: Linux does not require glibc. Users and their programs usually do require glibc but that's their choice. It's not mandated. People could theoretically rewrite the entire Linux user space in pure freestanding Rust if they wanted to. Name Service Switch is just a solution to a problem. There's no law that says Linux systems must have that system. Programs that depend on it will break if it's not there but that's not the fault of Linux.