This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Fri, May 31, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > On Fri, 2002-05-31 at 00:42, Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > > > No, I never said this. I wrote that we would break the protocol if we > > would add IPv6 support to the current sunrpc code as we tried in the > > past. ti-rpc speaks the old and the new protocol. > > Then what you say makes even less sense. There is no reason to give up > our well-proven implementation for the old protocol. It can be get > despite what you said. You just have to add the new code. According to your emails from this morning you don't wish to see 2 implementations of the RPC code. So this is impossible. > > That's the reason for using ti-rpc instead of hacking sunrpc: With > > ti-rpc we don't have the protocol incompatibilities we would introduce > > with a hacked sunrpc version. > > This is complete nonsense. If ti-rpc can be compatible there is no > reason why an extension of the existing implementation cannot be, too. I think you should really look deeper at the problem before you continues to write "complete nonsense" without knowing about what you are speaking. Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE Linux AG Deutschherrnstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
Attachment:
msg00240/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |