From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/8774 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jan Broer Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: Would love to see reconsideration for domain and search Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:39:36 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20151023052625.GD55813@wopr.sciops.net> <20151024220215.GV8645@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20151025131914.GJ28311@example.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11403270c4fa9b0522edf9a1 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445780391 14142 80.91.229.3 (25 Oct 2015 13:39:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 13:39:51 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-8787-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sun Oct 25 14:39:51 2015 Return-path: 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 ) id 1ZqLWY-0006oi-P0 for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:39:50 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 16066 invoked by uid 550); 25 Oct 2015 13:39:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 16045 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2015 13:39:48 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=xy+hCCw3Udbl8xZD/OiHNJ4RlnN7SpYCQ+vvqKGhfB0=; b=jbHOIVebbuPPnTZRAHkP8c0fU+unC7RkqH5vNd/HfPAGMFYkJeMqwU3kbRyClceWwb iwp1x1iY68z9yg01TSf6VteLXmj19KNWCiNk+OebXr4FMLJrJjxmC4QK3Q9ivutQB6Yg SUGrHsyCxYk40i/Uxf6E7gBmeGnjlQkk4s2MWMslXFOWcbSbfw2Vx8/Gz3Ftx1He7F/+ 0UzoLKeJhSdwVFHFsgCnZN7yM19CL6x12JFrqdPncnkzbKCV+YHfydyt9wVgojKwKOS8 LVU02+Cn9Fftydyw1ZvaNDElVpUR720DIBCOd0rbDnfsk7NtZCWqyBPnh4z+j5rXQeKZ BM5Q== X-Received: by 10.107.34.149 with SMTP id i143mr34849607ioi.195.1445780376581; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 06:39:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20151025131914.GJ28311@example.net> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:8774 Archived-At: --001a11403270c4fa9b0522edf9a1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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. Thats why there really is no need to misuse ndots option as "on/off switch" for searching. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:19 PM, wrote: > 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 > > --001a11403270c4fa9b0522edf9a1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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-sear= ch option from the DHCP server.
Thats why there really is no need = to misuse ndots option as "on/off switch" for searching.

On Sun, Oct 25,= 2015 at 2:19 PM, <u-uy74@aetey.se> wrote:
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=3D0. This woul= d
> essentially break search for systems where resolv.conf values are mana= ged
> 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 i= s no
> DHCP option for configuring ndots (see
> http://linux.die.net/man/5/dhcp-options) and therefo= re 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


--001a11403270c4fa9b0522edf9a1--