On 07/04/2012 10:02 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > > I don't understand what you mean. There's no need to add parsing > for /etc/hosts to anything. The library already has that parsing code; > it's all embedded under the gethostbyname() function. Since you're > already invoking gethostbyname() you're already paying for the overhead > of the code that parses the /etc/hosts file. > > The right thing to do in what sense? The right thing to do for your > environment? Obviously only you can decide whether you'd rather have > the host(1) or getent(1) applets. Both are useful, in different > contexts. > > The getent(1) utility is useful for all sorts of scripting needs. It's > far and away the most likely to be useful in a normal Busybox > environment. The lucky thing is it's also simpler to write and will > result in much less code added to Busybox. > > The host(1) utility is really mainly useful when you're debugging DNS > problems and/or servers. It's not so useful for general scripting > because the IP address you get back from it might not be the same IP > address as some program you invoke (ping or ssh or telnet or whatever > for example) would use for that same hostname, which can be confusing. > > Also as far as I'm aware there's no standard C runtime function which > you can use to implement host(1), so you'll have to recreate a > significant chunk of the DNS server access code, which WOULD be a lot of > work and a lot of new, somewhat complex code added to Busybox. My > suspicion is that the Busybox maintainers would be leery of accepting > this and might suggest you just go get the real host(1) application from > BIND and use that instead. > >
there is something that I miss in understanding the issue so I need to understand it first. Eial. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
