On 8/1/23 12:41, Petr Menšík wrote:
Hi Zdenek,
the current logic is:
- with-mdns4: mdns4_minimal
- with-mdns6: mdns6_minimal
- with-mdns4 and with-mdns6? mdns_minimal

If I understand your message correctly, you propose to keep this logic but use mdns4/mdns6/mdns instead of minimal and drop support for minimal completely. Is that right?

Thank,
Pavel

No, not at all. We want minimal variants preferred until nss-mdns is changes significantly. Check nss-mdns issue #88 [1].

1. https://github.com/lathiat/nss-mdns/issues/88

Petr, this issue exists only if mdns.allow exists, so if we don't ship it as I recommend, we don't hit this issue. The file will be created by a user in case he needs to override settings which are against standards, where IMO a delay is tolerable. Thus, the issue is nice to have and should not block using mdns4/mdns6 variants. What I would support is adding a note into README file of nss-mdns, mentioning the delay due the mentioned bug - until it is fixed.

So Pavel, I've understood me correctly - use mdns/mdns4/mdns6 instead of minimal variants, because they provide the same functionality as minimal + possibility to override network misconfigurations. And don't use complete 'mdns' by default.

But I'm not a nss-mdns or avahi maintainer, just a maintainer of stacks which use mdns often - printing and scanning. I've got this opinion from issues in past, by checking nss-mdns code and by intention of minimizing of new work in authselect, unless it is necessary.


Zdenek


--
Zdenek Dohnal
Senior Software Engineer
Red Hat, BRQ-TPBC
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to