* Camm Maguire [2012-04-09 08:57:11 -0400]:
> Greetings, and thanks for your report! Is there a valid way lam could
> work around this /etc/hosts breakage? The report in 316099 appears to
> indicate that the problem has been resolved by never associating
> 127.0.0.1 with the canonical name of the local host. Does this solve
> the issue?
LAM could for example treat any address in 127.0.0.0/8 as local. This
conforms with RFC 3330 so there is a chance that it will be valid even
for platforms other than Linux. I'm looking at the code for lamnet_findorig()
in share/boot/lamnet.c and see that for now it just does a straight
comparison of the 4-byte addresses; one could augment the test with a
|| (ifaddr[i]>>24 == 127 &&
lamnet[i].lnd_addr.sin_addr.s_addr>>24 == 127)
or equivalent (instead of shifting one can mask with 0xff000000 and compare
to 0x7f000000).
Failing this, one should at least document the issue in README.Debian.
(Maybe debconf or postinst could detect the issue at installation time
and present a warning note too. But it's probably simpler to just patch
lamnet_findorig().)
Since this is really a matter of integration within Debian, it may be worth
discussing in a broader context than just this package. (I've noticed a
similar issue with the autofs package, although in that case the effect
is merely to force the use of loopback NFS mounts where bind mounts
would do so the impact is less severe.) As indicated in 316099, the
long-term goal should be not to list the local host name in /etc/hosts
at all; the question is whether this can now be achieved without breaking
anything. (Is GNOME 3 better behaved than its predecessors in this regard?)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
