On Mon, 2006-28-08 at 19:25 +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> The reason to remove the line is not that it's no longer used,
> the reason is that it's *misleading*.

That could easily be fixed by adding a comment line that the "order"
line is only used by old versions of the libc library. There is no need
to break old programs.

> 
> Now you have a point, "some" software may break because of this,
> but so far the only example happens to be jurassic statically linked
> software which is also non-free and proprietary (and of course
> Debian does not distribute). I don't feel a lot sorry for this.

This issue has nothing to do with the fact that Mathematica is non-free
and proprietary. The problem would occur with any statically linked
program that happens to use an older version of libc, whether free or
not.

> 
> I think this is the kind of problem we should better document, instead
> of perpetuating the misleading line. May I suggest that you report
> this against the release notes document for etch?

I am not sure how the manual page for /etc/hosts.conf is anymore
misleading now then it was before. I am quoting from the current page:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The  file /etc/host.conf contains configuration information specific to
       the resolver library.  It should contain one configuration
keyword  per
       line,  followed by appropriate configuration information.  The
keywords
       recognized are order, trim, multi, nospoof, spoof, and reorder.
These
       keywords are described below.

       order  This keyword specifies how host lookups are to be
performed.  It
              should be followed by one or more lookup methods,
separated  by
              commas.  Valid methods are bind, hosts, and nis.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I gather Debian does not care about backwards compatibility.


Andreas



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to