Re: getaddrinfo() behaviour

2007-09-30 Thread Anthony Towns
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 08:10:33PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Ian Jackson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070928 17:48]: > > Anthony Towns writes ("getaddrinfo() behaviour"): > > > I'd be interested to see explanations of why this should be > > > considered RC. > > I think that it should be changed in et

Re: Call for Votes (Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort order)

2007-09-30 Thread Steve Langasek
On Sun, Sep 23, 2007 at 04:02:25PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: > Anthony Towns writes ("Re: Call for Votes (Re: glibc's getaddrinfo() sort > order)"): > > I don't think the tech ctte should be authorising themselves to do NMUs > > under any circumstances. > Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Call for Vote

Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection

2007-09-30 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 09:07:16PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Kurt Roeckx: > > > - A simular case is that you have 2 segments, 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24, > > and you add a 1.0.0.2 and 1.0.1.2. Now you want clients to connect > > to the one from it's own segment, and fall back to the oth

Re: A comment about RFC 3484 address selection

2007-09-30 Thread Florian Weimer
* Kurt Roeckx: > - A simular case is that you have 2 segments, 1.0.0.0/24 and 1.0.1.0/24, > and you add a 1.0.0.2 and 1.0.1.2. Now you want clients to connect > to the one from it's own segment, and fall back to the other if it > fails. > > In this case rule 9 might be useful. But I woul