From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8775
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 15:08:31 +0100
Message-ID: <20151025140831.GK28311@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>
 <20151025131914.GJ28311@example.net>
 <CA+MmhbNmqs2U7UqpfKjgPXO48J_UCEXfitbFaD_rRVpqwsrNFQ@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 1445782142 7353 80.91.229.3 (25 Oct 2015 14:09:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-8788-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 25 15:09:02 2015
Return-path: <musl-return-8788-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-8788-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1ZqLyn-00038Y-3q
	for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:09:01 +0100
Original-Received: (qmail 28020 invoked by uid 550); 25 Oct 2015 14:08:58 -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 27999 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2015 14:08:58 -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=1445782126; x=1447596527; bh=yDsw8kaFW
	NUphlLnRtNSeAm54TRPXrB78QDAGCHLR58=; b=JMxrkI1pkByBAEDBuOP3KSHhE
	zYb3uamROFRhD73/fHzknuDaBrMz7R5ZZGq7tlOgoekQQ9jN0xwqMUKhKkpEetvM
	j7bffjUVykW8Whc+kbbS5G3awcYgqnObt8CJh+6bvNEyY0xiivvIG8C8FyU8hZ3/
	WWFTzWA3gHStamkruY=
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at fripost.org
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+MmhbNmqs2U7UqpfKjgPXO48J_UCEXfitbFaD_rRVpqwsrNFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8775
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8775>

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 02:39:36PM +0100, Jan Broer wrote:
> I don't think we disagree there. The user decides whether search is used by
> either setting the search keyword in resolv.conf or by configuring his DHCP
> client (dhclient.conf) to fetch the domain-search option from the DHCP
> server.

You seem to assume that the user can not influence the ndots option in the
resolv.conf if the corresponding host is to use some other data delivered
by dhcp (i.e. for building resolv.conf).

For certain setups this can be true, probably meaning that they [rely
on a non-existent standard and] do not bother having proper control
over resolv.conf?

Otherwise, in a general case, we disagree.

Isn't it reasonable that people wishing to use extra and
"somewhat/potentially expensive" features of resolv.conf have to put
effort into actually activating them?

Regards,
Rune