Re: Proposed roadmap to 1.0

[orc <orc@sibserver.ru>]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:04:09 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:29:42PM +0800, orc wrote:
> > > > getifaddrs() does not returns AF_PACKET like glibc does, so
> > > > list of all system interfaces is incomplete (does not shows
> > > > inactive interfaces).
> > > 
> > > Is there a use case you want this for? I remember when we added
> > > getifaddrs this was discussed, and I was hesitant to add AF_PACKET
> > > because it's using some deprecated version of some structure
> > > where the fields are too small to store the values they're
> > > supposed to represent. I'd have to look through the mailing list
> > > and/or IRC logs to recall the details, though. I'm not entirely
> > > opposed to it if there's a serious need, but at the time it
> > > seemed like a poorly designed interface.
> > 
> > I faced problem when I tried to build dhcpcd with musl. I
> > dropped dhcpcd then, found simple default.script for udhcpc and
> > forgot about any problems.
> 
> Do you know what dhcpcd needs it for? If it's just automatic binding
> when you don't specify an interface, that's probably a bad idea
> anyway... But maybe we should support it.

It listed interfaces internally, compared command line argument with
each, and if not found, exited with error. An interface of question was
down at the moment, so was not listed by getifaddrs().

> 
> > > > I attached patch for getaddrinfo() (adopt it if you need it)
> > > > and test program.
> > > 
> > > I think it could be cleaner/simpler but I might just commit it
> > > as-is for now and wait to clean it up until the getaddrinfo
> > > cleanup/overhaul which was scheduled for this release cycle but
> > > will get pushed back to the next.
> > 
> > Thanks for review. I think I can apply it now on server :)
> 
> I didn't really "review" it, but as long as you tested it, it's
> probably fine. There are only 3 possible code paths here, not an
> infinite family of them, so as long as each of the 3 works for you
> it should be fine.

OK, just to be sure. I tested it in 3 possible ways, anything works
nice.

> 
> Rich