[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD
From: |
Thomas Bushnell, BSG |
Subject: |
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD |
Date: |
29 Sep 2001 11:16:58 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 |
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> writes:
> OTOH I don't think that an arbitrarily long hostname makes much
> sense.
Really? Have you seen proposals for handling internet growth?
Hostnames are already getting longer and longer. I was once at
"unmvax". Then that became "unmvax.unm.edu". Now my laptop has the
attractive address "vp190095.reshsg.uci.edu". Indeed, BSD added a
field to utmp for the remote host name, and that field (go figure) was
something like 12 characters, and so major hassle ensued to make it
bigger.
> I don't accept that this is the only correct thing to do.
Another way is to have an interface to fetch the length of the
hostname first, and then allocate a suitably sized buffer, or else use
an interface that allocates its own buffer.
> I was quite happy to have the problem (with MAXHOSTNAMELEN) pointed
> out. I am not happy to add new complexity to applications for no
> gain.
What about the gain of Posix compliance? Two messages ago, you were
insisting that Posix said you were right. And then, when Posix
actually says you're wrong, now what? Posix is no longer worth
attention?
> It is laudable that you want to do away with `arbitrary limits', and
> it is laudable that you (apparently) want to be POSIX-compliant. I
> think it is shameful, however, that the Hurd will not define
> MAXHOSTNAMELEN or even HOST_NAME_MAX: this seems to be biting the
> thumb at portability.
We HAVE no limit. Why should we invent one? What need is there to
deliberately break our system?
> For gethostname, one can use it in a manner that is portable,
> POSIX-compliant, and simple by using the appropriate constant (which
> is defined by the OS). Unlike the case with pathnames, there does not
> seem to be any benefit in adding complexity to support lengths longer
> than the minimum specified by POSIX.
It's not Posix compliant if you code only works when HOST_NAME_MAX is
defined, because Posix *explicitly* allows it not to be defined when
it would not make sense to on a particular system.
> I don't really have a `problem' with implementing functionality
> similar to xgethostname -- I just think that it is rather silly to
> jump through such hoops for a basic operation.
Then can we please do that? It is just more flexible all round.
> Lastly, this in no way means that it acceptable for Heimdal to be
> broken on the Hurd. It will be fixed one way or another.
Good! I'm glad we agree about the most important things. :)
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, (continued)
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Jacques A. Vidrine, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/30
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD,
Thomas Bushnell, BSG <=
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/09/29
- Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29
Re: heimdal on GNU HURD, Marcus Brinkmann, 2001/09/29