On Thursday 29 September 2005 21:32, Jason Kim wrote: > I know it's bad form to reply to myself, but after much sleep and coffee I > feel that I can tackle this in a bit more coherent (and concise) manner... > > * There appear to be some email addressing issues with cfexecd's > mailing function. There was one I sent yesterday about a sscanf function > which is supposed to grab the domain from a 'MailTo' variable, and one I > found today where an 'if' statement has the same exact 'then' and 'else' > clauses. I've attached a patch that I believe corrects the issues. > > * The email function can (under some circumstances) use differing 'from' > addresses, one during the smtp 'MAIL FROM:' section and another in the > actual message body. Is this intentional? It doesn't seem so, in which case > the patch I've provided does nothing more than fix a fundamentally broken > method. In that case I will gladly try to neaten it up some if no one else > wants to. > > * The main part of my previous email was devoted to the matter of > extraneous runlog files caused by inconsistent handling of > qualified/unqualified hostnames by cfexecd and cfagent (I'm going to ignore > cfenvd, it's just not worth it). It appears that cfagent has the most > robust method of getting it right, provided that there is a 'domain' > variable defined. I propose patching cfexecd to instead query cfagent for > the correct names, as its current method of calling GetNameInfo() doesn't > work consistently in all cases. This could be as simple as adding 'host' > and 'domain' to the list of values that GetCfStuff() grabs from cfagent and > doing away with GetNameInfo() altogether. But if the side effects of > GetNameInfo() (setting various name based classes) are needed (and I didn't > see any sign that they were), I suppose a simple correction to VFQNAME, > VUQNAME, and VDOMAIN after every GetNameInfo() would work too. > > There, I hope that was better... > -JayKim > Replying to myself again... I'm sorry, I don't want to be annoying, but has anyone had a chance (or the desire) to look into these issues? They are somewhat minor, but I'm rolling out cfengine company-wide and details do count. Would it be easier if I were to just submit a giant patch that would 'fix' things the way I think they should be? I don't want to step on the Mr. Burgess' toes, and I'm sure he has much more understanding of the code than I do... -JayKim
_______________________________________________ Bug-cfengine mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cfengine
