[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Second patch to IPv6
From:       Thiago Macieira <thiagom () mail ! com>
Date:       2001-01-20 3:53:46
[Download RAW message or body]

Waldo Bastian wrote:
> I'm missing the res_init() hack though. When you are on a dial up
connection,
> the dialer has a tendency to make changes to /etc/resolv.conf. But once
you
> have done a hostname lookup, information from /etc/resolv.conf is cached.
> That means that if /etc/resolv.conf changes after you have done a hostname
> lookup, your next hostname lookup will use the old information from the
old
> /etc/resolv.conf. What we now did was, if gethostbyname returned an error,
we
> call res_init to force a reread of /etc/resolv.conf and redo the
> gethostbyname call.

That can still be done, by adding a res_init() call if getaddrinfo()
returns no matches found. The only problem is that, unlike
gethostbyname(), getaddrinfo() does several lookups (A6, AAAA and A),
which could get quite lengthy.

[Note: no implementation I know of uses A6 yet. But they will]

Now, the big problem with res_init() is having to link against
-lresolv. If that's not a problem, we'll go for it.

Oh, one site note: getaddrinfo() might not be affected by res_init()
if it's in a different library (like -lbind)

> Very hackish, i know.

How does this sound: DNS ioslave?

> Apart from that, do you want me to put it into CVS? Do you want CVS access
> yourself?

Actually, I think it is a good idea to have all the code somewhere in
a CVS. It doesn't have to be KDE's, as I was keeping a local CVS of
the files I modified. However,

> We are close to beta2 for 2.1 (this monday). I would love to see this
getting
> into 2.1 but for that I guess it is important to get it into beta2 to make
> sure that it gets some testing.

I don't think it's quite a good idea for it to go in 2.1. Yes, I'd
love to see KDE 2.1 with it, but with such major changes -- and
considering we rely on sockets far too much -- I'd rather have a more
extensive testing period.

So, what I suggest is a branch off HEAD, or KDE_2_1 or whatever is
tagged for KDE 2.1. I need more beta testers (only two people
downloaded yesterday's!), because I know there will be problems with
some configurations out there. There are systems that don't have
getaddrinfo(), there are those that have PF_INET6 but not sockaddr_in6
(inherited from the kernel unknowingly, for instance) and the list
goes on. I have anticipated some problems, but who knows what might
show up.

I don't need CVS access right now. I'm using diffs from HEAD and
that's fine for me. If a branch in CVS is taken, then having write
access would be nice, considering there are still some things I have
to change/add.

--
  Thiago Macieira - UFOT Registry number: 1001
 thiagom@mail.com talha@geocities.com
   ICQ UIN: 1967141  PGP: 0x8F2978D5 and 0xEA9037A5
     Registered Linux user #65028

142/379. My mom says two heads are better than one. Isn't that the
Borg philosophy, too? -- Naomi Wildman, "Bliss"

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]