> I'm not very keen on this from an SRU perspective. RFC or not, it's really a feature addition
This is a bug. RFC1035 describes how long a hostname must be, and httpd was not honouring the RFC. This doesn't implement "longer hostnames", this implements RFC compliant hostnames. The httpd project has ABI guarantees in the v2.4 release series. This meant we had to support the older fields unchanged, while at the same time introducing new compliant fields. This is well established and well understood at httpd and is not out of the ordinary. > Do we really need this in an SRU? Can affected users use shorter hostnames > instead? No. The longer answer is "epically no". We have a huge estate of machines, all with names that are both descriptive and unique, and therefore long. There is no option to make them shorter. Instead of hacking around bugs, let's fix them. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1750356 Title: Apache2: BalancerMember worker hostname (65.character.host.name) too long To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/apache2/+bug/1750356/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
