On ven, sep 28, 2007 at 05:21:59 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit writes ("Re: getaddrinfo: DNS round robin vs RFC3484 s6 rule 9, for etch"):
> > But such a ruling in Debian
> > (disregarding Debian's internal power games) has a pretty limited scope,
> > and won't fix the fact that most OSes follow Rule 9 and that people that
> > use Debian on their servers will still need to use other techniques than
> > DNS RR until total world domination is achieved.
>
> Well, it will allow Debian's own ftpmasters to use DNS round robin
> because nearly all of the systems which access ftp.*.debian.org are
> running Debian.
Yeah, that allows pretty only that. I mean, any other service running
on a Debian won't benefit from this. I don't say it's not worth it
either, I just say it's fixing at the wrong level. Also note that
patching the 3 apt calls to getaddrinfo to do real round robin is maybe
10 lines of C, and would have solved apt mirrors issues on every OS that
uses apt (yeah not only Debian uses apt).
DNS RR is "broken" on Windows XP since SP2, Windows Vista, most *BSDs,
Redhat and Fedora, and probably any Linux distribution out there
(including Ubuntu LTS…). Okay it's nice to be a righteous citizen, but
I'm not sure that fighting like you did on the CT list was worth the
effort. Service administrators (Debian systems included) will need to
stop using DNS RR right now, because it won't work with too many systems
anymore. Is that an issue ? I believe it is. But blame the IETF, harrass
them.
> > Oh and above anything else I find really intriguing that such a bad
> > functionality (at least it seems to be a pretty grave problem given the
> > length of some mails on the CT list) has slept in Debian for more than 2
> > years unnoticed.
>
> AIUI it was noticed by the ftpmasters when ftp.us.debian.org broke
> when large numbers of users upgraded to etch and got the new
> behaviour.
Well, I began to hear those rumors only now, and I'm surprised that
stable users have such an impact on ftpmaster, wrt e.g. unstable users
(and unstable users have the issue for 2 years).
> > This argument is pure crap and prevent anyone interested to post to
> > the TC list. This has pissed me beyond repair on this problem, and I
> > believe I wasn't the only one. IMHO, the TC isn't functional with a
> > restricted mailing list. debian-release is not under the same
> > censorship, and looks though pretty functional to me.
>
> I'm sorry you don't like the way we run our mailing list but that is a
> matter for us.
I'm sorry, but the CT is a _Debian_ committee, composed of delegates,
and how it works is a matter to the whole project.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgphL37dy6bhR.pgp
Description: PGP signature