On 07/04/2012 10:18 AM, Eial Czerwacki wrote: > 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. >> >>
after understanding what Paul and Harald meant, I'll rewrite the patch and post it later on. Thanks of the clarification guys. Eial. _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
