- Original Message -
> From: "Nick Jones"
> In the summary of this Fedora feature for fixing name resolution is
> this snippet: "Fedora could be seen as the leader in linux networking"
Yep. My intention to improve the overall networking features is not limited to
what is described in Fix
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 4:57 AM, Nick Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Nick Jones wrote:
>>> As a quick summary: I would suggest, in addition to addressing
>>> the outstanding bugs and issues covered by the Fedora feature,
>
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Hello,
> just a minor point, not getting into the wider "should getaddrinfo()
> be the primary interface" debate...
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Nick Jones wrote:
>> As a quick summary: I would suggest, in addition to addressing
>>
Hello,
just a minor point, not getting into the wider "should getaddrinfo()
be the primary interface" debate...
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:58 AM, Nick Jones wrote:
> As a quick summary: I would suggest, in addition to addressing
> the outstanding bugs and issues covered by the Fedora feature,
> a
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:37:37AM +0800, Nick Jones wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> >As the Feature was renamed and the content of Feature has been extended
>> >as requested by FESCo, re-anno
On 01/23/2013 07:31 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 10:35 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 09:48 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>
>>> The signal handler can write a packet into a pipe from the process to
>>> itself,
>>> and that can be hooked up to an event loop API.
>
>> Clear
On 01/23/2013 10:35 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 09:48 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> The signal handler can write a packet into a pipe from the process to itself,
>> and that can be hooked up to an event loop API.
> Clearly. But then you have to deal with signal handling and al
On Wed, 23.01.13 12:35, Dan Williams (d...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > >>> Bh. It's designed around process signal delivery. I am
> > >>> shuddering.
> > >>
> > >> Ew. Signals are not an event loop API. Signals are not an event loop
> > >> API. Signals are not an event loop API. But apparently
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 09:48 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> On 01/23/2013 09:27 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:25AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:46 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 21.01.13 10:25, Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@re
On 01/23/2013 09:27 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:25AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:46 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21.01.13 10:25, Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>>
> The glibc maintainers don't seem to
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:24:25AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:46 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 21.01.13 10:25, Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > > The glibc maintainers don't seem to be against this idea and I am
> > > > willing to
On Wed, 2013-01-23 at 02:46 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 21.01.13 10:25, Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > The glibc maintainers don't seem to be against this idea and I am
> > > willing to put time into design and implementation.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm misunderst
On Mon, 21.01.13 10:25, Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > The glibc maintainers don't seem to be against this idea and I am
> > willing to put time into design and implementation.
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're after, but doesn't "getaddrinfo_a"
> already provide a
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:37:37AM +0800, Nick Jones wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >As the Feature was renamed and the content of Feature has been extended
> >as requested by FESCo, re-announcing it to the community for re-review.
> >
> >See https://fedo
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik writes:
>
>> See https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986
>>
>> = Features/Fix Network Name Resolution =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution
>
>
> Why would this be a Fedora issue or a featur
On Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:11 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
As the Feature was renamed and the content of Feature has been extended
as requested by FESCo, re-announcing it to the community for re-review.
See https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986
= Features/Fix Network Name Resolution =
> > = Features/Fix Network Name Resolution =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution
>
> Why would this be a Fedora issue
Isn't glibc used in Fedora for name resolution?
> or a feature?
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution#Rationale
Jaroslav Reznik writes:
See https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/986
= Features/Fix Network Name Resolution =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FixNetworkNameResolution
Why would this be a Fedora issue or a feature?
Seems to me this falls squarely inside the scope of glibc, and it sho
18 matches
Mail list logo
