* Joe Orton
| But yes, testsockets.c will need some tweaking to cope with this
| getaddrinfo implementation. I think it's caused by an Ubuntu patch, if
| I read https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/netcfg/+bug/24828
| correctly. It might break some applications in fun ways too, but
|
On 6/7/07, Joe Orton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:15:49PM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Same machine, now with -n:
Thanks. Was the last line omitted from the results for Solaris which
you posted, or was it really a NULL result list?
I don't think this provides any reason
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:57:00PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
This is the output:
getaddrinfo AF_UNSPEC/SOCK_STREAM/AI_ADDRCONFIG failed
so, yes: hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; makes getaddrinfo fail.
Just so I can understand the precise nuances of this, can you post the
output
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:57:00PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
This is the output:
getaddrinfo AF_UNSPEC/SOCK_STREAM/AI_ADDRCONFIG failed
so, yes: hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; makes getaddrinfo fail.
Just so I can understand the precise nuances of this, can
Davi Arnaut wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:57:00PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
This is the output:
getaddrinfo AF_UNSPEC/SOCK_STREAM/AI_ADDRCONFIG failed
so, yes: hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; makes getaddrinfo fail.
Just so I can understand the precise
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:18:41PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:57:00PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
This is the output:
getaddrinfo AF_UNSPEC/SOCK_STREAM/AI_ADDRCONFIG failed
so, yes: hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; makes getaddrinfo fail.
Just so I can
On 06/06/2007, at 19:06, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 10:57:00PM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu
wrote:
This is the output:
getaddrinfo AF_UNSPEC/SOCK_STREAM/AI_ADDRCONFIG failed
so, yes: hints.ai_flags = AI_ADDRCONFIG; makes getaddrinfo fail.
Just so I
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:15:49PM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Same machine, now with -n:
Thanks. Was the last line omitted from the results for Solaris which
you posted, or was it really a NULL result list?
I don't think this provides any reason to change the APR resolver code.
Ubuntu systems
Joe Orton wrote:
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 08:15:49PM -0300, Davi Arnaut wrote:
Same machine, now with -n:
Thanks. Was the last line omitted from the results for Solaris which
you posted, or was it really a NULL result list?
Probably omitted -- cut-and-pasted from chat log.
I don't think
