https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54874
--- Comment #9 from Sebb <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dan Fruehauf from comment #8) > I understand the backward compatibility argument, however you are catering > here for the an extremely unlikely use case, which probably doesn't exist > and will happen if and only if both conditions are met: > * The user has a hostname named as a device - UNLIKELY > * That hostname resolves to an IP address which is not of the mentioned > device - VERY VERY UNLIKELY But not impossible. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps just process the hostnames first - would that work? > > > Provided I do that, how do I know if something is a hostname or a device? > > > > If the name does not resolve as a host name, then assume it may be a device. > > You are adding significantly extra complexity here for a situation that > probably doesn't happen. Over engineering backward compatibility. I disagree that any of the fixes I proposed would significantly increase the complexity. > > Surely the Unix device is actually something like /dev/tun10, not just > > "tun10" anyway? > No, it's just tun10. So it does not exist under /dev? > I'm unconvinced that any of the hypothetical scenarios we mentioned here > actually happen in real life. Even with pretty bad engineering paradigms. We disagree. The patch will not be accepted without changes to ensure: - host names take precedence over device names - the network devices are not searched unnecessarily -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
