Hi, all.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (at Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:40:07 +0900),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says:
> Are you trying to change 2553 to use socklen_t for all the arguments,
> or are you trying to correct glibc? If the latter, the mailing list
> is a wrong place to ask.
Of course, the latter.
> Some description on current situation should help you...
> The XNS-RFC incompatibility will be solved when 2553bis document
> is finalized. For the current specification, RFC2553 looks
> more correct (RFC2553 is more closer to 2553bis). For updated
> specification, words in 2553bis will be directly put into XNS so
> they will become exactly the same. (correct me if my memory is wrong)
When will 2553bis be finalized?
If it takes much time, new glibc ships with wrong declaration
because they won't respect RFC2553(bis), but XNS.
Then, many distributions will ships with incorrect glibc. (bad...)
> As there is no change between RFC2553 and 2553bis on this particular
> "getnameinfo argument" issue, RFC2553 is the correct specification
> to look at for this particular issue.
>
> Please try to convince glibc guys, quoting the above if necessary.
I've raised an official bug-report:
<http://www-gnats.gnu.org:8080/cgi-bin/wwwgnats.pl/full?pr=1805>
We need comments on this from people other than me to convince them.
Please, please comment on this directly (not via me) to the
glibc people. We really need it.
--
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Web Page: http://www.ecei.tohoku.ac.jp/%7Eyoshfuji/
PGP5i FP: F731 6599 5EB2 BBA7 1515 1323 1806 A96F 5700 6B25
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
