On Feb 16 12:09, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 03:48:35PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >On Feb 16 12:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>On Feb 16 03:30, Warren Young wrote:
> >>>On Feb 15, 2014, at 5:50 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >>>>No, that's not right.  We have two mechanisms implemented you can
> >>>>choose three out of four possible combinations:
> >>>>
> >>>>files only db only files, then db
> >>>
> >>>Yes, I realize that.
> >>>
> >>>While composing the previous email, I considered a 2-Boolean design:
> >>>
> >>>ignore_db=false ignore_files=false
> >>>
> >>>I rejected that design when I realized that ignore_files is redundant
> >>>with respect to /etc/foo file existence.  If the files are present, use
> >>>them.  If not, you have a DB-only configuration.
> >>
> >>What if an admin wants to avoid that files are read at all, even if a
> >>user manages to generate them?
> >
> >Anyway, I'm willing to switch from /etc/nsswitch.conf to something
> >else.
> 
> Can you summarize why this is necessary?  I haven't really followed how
> we got to the point where documented nscd.conf/nsswitch.conf
> functionality wouldn't be sufficient.

Documented for Linux or documented for Cygwin?

Most of the settings now done in nsswitch.conf have nothing to do with
what is done in nsswitch.conf on other OSes.  These settings have no
equivalent to the settings done in nscd.conf either.  Except for the
passwd: and group: settings, they are plain Cygwin only.


Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat