On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:14:09AM +0000, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Thu, Sep 13, 2007 at 12:06:40AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Does anyone have an answer to my point that application of rule 9 > > changes the long-established meaning of existing DNS data ? > > I'm not familiar with how getaddrinfo() has been implemented in the > past -- but I think it makes more sense to look at the definition of > the function than the data it's manipulating. > > The RFC tries to make getaddrinfo return a predictable ordering in the > face of random orderings from DNS. That seems a perfectly reasonable > way to define a function in the abstract; though certainly the ordering > it comes up with can be criticised. > > > I disagree with your answer to that first question. gethostbyname > > returns results in random order. getaddrinfo should do the same. > > I'd say it's more important that getaddrinfo() on Debian behave "the same" > as on other operating systems, than that it behave in the same way as > other functions. I can only take the RFC's assertion as to getaddrinfo()'s > proper behaviour though; I don't have a more direct idea how getaddrinfo() > behaves in previous versions of Debian, other Linux distros, other libcs, > Windows, etc. Our tests shows that windows XP since SP1 (or 2 ?), vista, various recent BSD, and now glibc 2.6 (or 2.5 I don't remember when it was introduced) all behave this way. I've no access to macos X, but I wouldn't be surprised it works the same. Another interesting hint would be to test on solaris too. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpx1wrfegC2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature