On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 11:46:54PM +0000, Joey Hess wrote: > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > The point is, there is an RFC, and we put a patch so that admins can > > disable it using gai.conf. > > "There is an RFC" is not always a good excuse for breaking existing systems. > > "Admins can disable it" is not a good argument when one common class of > the breakage is all the systems that _don't_ disable it hammering > systems that have round-robins set up to distribute load. More > generally, "we added an option so your bug is fixed" is a common > fallacy. The point is: the option is here, I don't really care if the Ctte decides to set true or false by default. My underlying point was just that the switch is easy for us. SO yeah, if we change the default option, the "bug" is definitely fixed and is anything but a fallacy. OTOH there is no way upstream will change that (Ulrich refused the patch with blatant aggressiveness), so every other distribution (Fedora and RedHat, probably many other) will work that way. So we can rule everything we want here (and I absolutely don't care about the issue of the decision, I was just giving some pointers to the "pro's" as I assumed that the cons were obvious to anyone), this will not change how upstream glibc works, so many people (probably a majority ?) will use this new scheme anyway. And I also say that knowing Uli, (and knowing how deeply I care about this issue ;p) I won't spend a minute trying to argue with Uli, I'm not insane, and don't have the man-years to do that. Also note that probably many many Windows machines work that way (the RFC was written by a MS guy). And this behaviour impacts software developpers, and people that hoped that having multiple A records for their service will see a perfect round robin will be stuck anyways. I mean, it's non previous-practice-backward-compliant and one can argue reasonably it sucks. But hel-llooo ! this kind of "design" choice is not only local. If every one (or the majority) on the internet behaves like this, fixing this "bug" (if it is really one) in Debian will _not_, I say _not_ prevent us from fixing many software that rely on DNS round robin, because OTHER PARTIES will use the RFC-foo algorithm, and WE will have to cope with that whatever choice is made. > BTW, I'm seeing some programs that use getaddrinfo and still don't have > the RFC 3484 sorting behavior. Is this controlled by the AI_ADDRCONFIG flag? TTBOMK it's a "bug" wrt intended behaviour as per upstream. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpKoq0Hxg2ea.pgp
Description: PGP signature