"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Much like comparing the hostname to pathnames, this is an
> apples-to-oranges comparison. Besides, since the system can define
> HOST_NAME_MAX to be any value larger than _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX, there
> is no arbitrary limit. As
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:33:06AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> ``Have you stopped yet?'' I've outlined why
> I think having the situation with gethostname on GNU/Hurd stinks. We
> disagree, but there's no need for an attack.
(Sorry for replying a second time to the same message)
Ther
On Sun, Sep 30, 2001 at 10:33:06AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> Much like comparing the hostname to pathnames, this is an
> apples-to-oranges comparison. Besides, since the system can define
> HOST_NAME_MAX to be any value larger than _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX, there
> is no arb
I think this will be my last posting on this topic. I don't think
anything useful is being added now -- you appear to just be flaming.
I don't really want to encourage that.
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 02:10:50PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> My point is that you are willing to delibera
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Are referring to the fact that I would prefer to use a manifest
> constant versus sysconf or looping until a fit is found? Clearly I
> don't think that is an inferior solution, but rather a practical one.
My point is that you are will
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 12:40:12PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then
> > indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or
> > _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If the Hurd will not define MAXHOSTNAMELEN nor HOST_NAME_MAX, then
> indeed there really isn't a good choice. We'd have to use sysconf or
> _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX or what we `know' _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX to be.
> I think it's a pity.
You s
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 07:46:20PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Yes, the Single UNIX specification was in error. This error was taken over
> to POSIX draft 6 (from the Austin group), which also said that hostnames
> are limited to 255 characters. This was fixed in draft 7 by removing this
>
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 08:25:28PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk
>
> (that's the name of a village).
I now found more info at www.recordholders.org:
"The longest host name ever used"
www.tax.taxadvice.taxation.irs.tax-services.
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And Thomas doesn't live in Wales, UK, where we notice:
>
> llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwantysiliogogogoch.co.uk
So I knew about the name of Llanfair, but I saw this and said "is that
real?" So I typed (well, cut-and-pasted):
ping lla
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:16:58AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 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 "vp19
"Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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".
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 29, 2001 at 11:49:36AM -0500, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote:
> I verified it with draft 7 of IEEE Std 1003.1-200x before posting.
> I also confirmed that previous POSIX standards do not define a
> suitable constant for gethostname(). And finally, the Single UNIX
> Spec
[I may be a Heimdal developer, but these are just my personal views.]
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:15:46PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> I'm posting this message from a heimdal developer to bug-hurd
> for discussion on the topic of HOST_NAME_MAX. I don't have a
> draft of POSIX so I can't veri
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 05:15:46PM -0700, James Morrison wrote:
> However, your 1st note is something I don't agree with. For
> example MAXPATHLEN is defined on many systems, but is not the best way
> to find the limitations of the system because different filesystems
> could have different lim
> --- "Jacques A. Vidrine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Regardless, the next version of POSIX specifies HOST_NAME_MAX. We
> > should probably be using HOST_NAME_MAX instead of MAXHOSTNAMELEN
> > in the Heimdal sources, or at least do something such as
Note that no system is required to defin
oken but be more
> > appropriate then libkrb5, but apart from that everything else
> looks
> > OK (not tested thoroughly yet, as I do not have the latest
> automake
> > required).
> >
> > Thanks.
> > --
> > Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
17 matches
Mail list logo
