On 2012-4-9 17:09 , Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > What I'm trying to get across is that if we have an opportunity to reduce the > number of tickets that get filed, that's of benefit to everyone, so why > shouldn't we do it?
It's questionable that the patch will actually do that. (And you know as well as I that reducing the number of tickets filed is not in itself of benefit to everyone.) > I agree it and a bit of a hack, but I cannot envision a situation in which it > doesn't work correctly. If you can, please let me know. The obvious failure case would be a correctly downloaded file that looks like HTML to file(1) but doesn't end in .htm[l]. This simply hasn't been tested exhaustively, and it probably isn't practical to. That alone is a sufficient reason not to want it in the release. > Off the top of my head, here's an alternate solution: right before we ping > servers to find which ones are nearby, look up the IP address of a hostname > that we know doesn't exist (i.e. nonexistent.macports.org). If it returns an > IP address, we know we're dealing with a broken DNS server. Then, see if any > of the servers we're going to ping resolve to the same IP. If so, they should > be removed from the list and treated as if they don't exist. That and Jeff's idea of using known good DNS servers are certainly worth investigating. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
