From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8773
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: u-uy74@aetey.se
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and
 search
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:19:14 +0100
Message-ID: <20151025131914.GJ28311@example.net>
References: <CAO_RewaaFU=RmDPHNwpaCg=FsoG+dqr4NV-QXY=fAkVYnsS-Jw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net>
 <CAO_RewYQWuOUwKVNjX_j_S2-khuP9Z7XRZGcff=XKZXvoBtzeg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20151024220215.GV8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <CA+MmhbMmsOp5hmfSJZoT3DGL+FcQKqMBS7RGHwU7EKKLraZtgg@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445779198 29541 80.91.229.3 (25 Oct 2015 13:19:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:19:58 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-8786-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 25 14:19:45 2015
Return-path: <musl-return-8786-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-8786-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1ZqLD4-0002Tx-8E
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:19:42 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 7592 invoked by uid 550); 25 Oct 2015 13:19:40 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 7571 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2015 13:19:39 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fripost.org; h=
	in-reply-to:content-disposition:content-type:content-type
	:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:subject:from:from
	:date:date; s=20140703; t=1445779168; x=1447593569; bh=mZ728t8k9
	qPuUfDP/DSbhLoHt35IZqwsYI5LII8RFXc=; b=ngNXzIsdnyfvHfDBwVW+E+fyP
	cQoE0YraPxp6ib8Qlmx3ASuxWW/WbYRpkhb1gCYkTzSspXu3peDJzCTFGzleoKXs
	p626z6iLurdaQ9QUddsrfKQ7WgIhgDQ+IZkDuopRjmCZsYS3rG8+XVj8yaIY0bMU
	ksTtt2YWWheG9/8sGc=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+MmhbMmsOp5hmfSJZoT3DGL+FcQKqMBS7RGHwU7EKKLraZtgg@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8773
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8773>

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:06:29PM +0100, Jan Broer wrote:
> I don't think it is a good idea do default to ndots=0. This would
> essentially break search for systems where resolv.conf values are managed
> by the DHCP server. DHCP expects search to work when there is at least one
> entry in the domain-search option returned by the DHCP server. There is no
> DHCP option for configuring ndots (see
> http://linux.die.net/man/5/dhcp-options) and therefore search would not
> work in these configurations when ndots defaults to 0.

To be fair, it is not the dhcp server who generates the resolv.conf but
the tools on the computer itself (the dhcp client implementation).
IOW it is the administrator of the computer who decides what resolv.conf
shall look like, even if she/he possibly uses certain data from dhcp.

Rune