apr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Colm MacCarthaigh <c...@stdlib.net>
Subject Re: [Vote] Release APR 1.2.9/0.9.14 and apr-iconv 1.2.0
Date Thu, 07 Jun 2007 00:22:20 GMT
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 03:06:10AM +0300, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:
> You said (or so I understood) that APR should add a new flag
> (APR_NUMERIC_ADDRESS) to it's API. When a programmer wants to use
> "::1" in a call to apr_sockaddr_info_get, they should pass in this
> flag as well, to be sure that the call succeeds on Ubuntu 7.04 32bit
> too.

If we want to support this behaviour at all, we should. In general
though I'd have thought apr_inet_pton is sufficient, and that apr as a
whole does not need it. But for some reason folk seem to want
getaddrinfo("::1", ...) to magically work in spite of the what the RFCs
say , I'm just giving options here :-)

> What would that programmer do if it had to pass a hostname to
> apr_sockaddr_info_get and that name would point to "::1".

Just not set the flag, since it's not a numeric address. 

> More verbose:
> I added this to my /etc/hosts "::1 my_name_lo"
> and modified the testsocket.c file that failed replacing "::1" with
> "my_name_lo".
> The test failed (on Ubuntu 7.04, see here:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/netcfg/+bug/24828 some
> explanation for this behaviour on this platform.)

But the test should fail in that scenario, I don't see a problem.

> What good would APR_NUMERIC_ADDRESS do in this case?

Like I said, that is not the use-case.

Colm MacCárthaigh                        Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net

View raw message