Bug#397459: closed by Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#397459: net.conf entries cannot be CNAMEs)

[Julien BLACHE]

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> piper:~# host scanner
> scanner.oerlikon.madduck.net  CNAME sane.oerlikon.madduck.net
> sane.oerlikon.madduck.net CNAME wall.oerlikon.madduck.net
> wall.oerlikon.madduck.net A 192.168.14.1
>
> Either of 'wall' or 'sane' work. If I try to use 'scanner', it does
> not work.

% host sane2
sane2.technologeek.org  CNAME   sane1.technologeek.org
sane1.technologeek.org  CNAME   sardaukar.technologeek.org
sardaukar.technologeek.org  A   213.41.134.240

% SANE_DEBUG_NET=255 scanimage --list-devices
[...]
[net] sane_init: SANE net backend version 1.0.13 (AF-indep+IPv6) from 
sane-backends 1.0.18
[...]
[net] sane_init: trying to add sane2.technologeek.org
[net] add_device: adding backend sane2.technologeek.org
[net] add_device: backend sane2.technologeek.org added
[...]
[net] connect_dev: trying to connect to sane2.technologeek.org
[net] connect_dev: [0] connection succeeded (IPv4)
[...]
[net] sane_get_devices: got sane2.technologeek.org:test:0
[net] sane_get_devices: got sane2.technologeek.org:test:1
[net] sane_get_devices: finished (2 devices)
device `net:sane2.technologeek.org:test:0' is a Noname frontend-tester virtual 
device
device `net:sane2.technologeek.org:test:1' is a Noname frontend-tester virtual 
device
[...]

So, err, it works.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


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

Bug#397459: closed by Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#397459: net.conf entries cannot be CNAMEs)

[Julien BLACHE]

martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Uh, the correct way to handle this would be to tag the bug
> unreproducible.

No, there was no bug. I did the test, it worked, moreover I know this
code: I rewrote it and I tested it extensively.

> Also, please don't assume I file bugs about DNS problems without
> having checked my DNS stuff.
>
> Anyway, the problem is multiple CNAME levels, so if a CNAME points
> to another CNAME:

I'm just going to assume that you are filing bug reports without
identifying the real bug first. Hope you won't mind.

> Adam D. Barratt says this is 'legal but not recommended. RFC1034
> says: "Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software
> should not fail when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME
> chains should be followed and CNAME loops signalled as an error."
> and I don't believe 2181 changes that (10.2 says that if a PTR
> yields a CNAME then that CNAME should not yield another CNAME)'

I'll have to check how glibc handle this, because I'm only using
the standard name resolution facilities.

In the meantime, can you please send me the debug output from the net
backend, by running

SANE_DEBUG_NET=255 scanimage --list-devices

This should give some hints.

JB.

-- 
 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 
 Public key available on  - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 


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

Bug#397459: closed by Julien BLACHE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Re: Bug#397459: net.conf entries cannot be CNAMEs)

[martin f krafft]

reopen 397459
retitle 397459 net backend cannot handle multiple CNAME levels
thanks

also sprach Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.07.1803 
+0100]:
> > If I use a CNAME DNS name in net.conf, the scanner is not found. If
> > i use an A record name, it works. It would be nice if CNAMEs also
> > worked.
> 
> Works here (even to an A record in another domain).
> 
> Please check your (DNS) config.

Uh, the correct way to handle this would be to tag the bug
unreproducible.

Also, please don't assume I file bugs about DNS problems without
having checked my DNS stuff.

Anyway, the problem is multiple CNAME levels, so if a CNAME points
to another CNAME:

piper:~# host scanner
scanner.oerlikon.madduck.net  CNAME sane.oerlikon.madduck.net
sane.oerlikon.madduck.net CNAME wall.oerlikon.madduck.net
wall.oerlikon.madduck.net A 192.168.14.1

Either of 'wall' or 'sane' work. If I try to use 'scanner', it does
not work.

Adam D. Barratt says this is 'legal but not recommended. RFC1034
says: "Of course, by the robustness principle, domain software
should not fail when presented with CNAME chains or loops; CNAME
chains should be followed and CNAME loops signalled as an error."
and I don't believe 2181 changes that (10.2 says that if a PTR
yields a CNAME then that CNAME should not yield another CNAME)'

Thanks,

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)