> Quick fix, major absolutely correct:
>
> /etc/nsswitch contains line:
>
> hosts: files dns
>
> /etc/host.conf contains:
>
> order hosts, bind
Ah, yes, I confused the syntaxes, sorry about that.
/etc/nsswitch.conf indeed contains something like "hosts: files dns"
to configure NSS.
The th
Hi Rich !
> On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:36:08PM +0200, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> > Full ack! Are you able to provide a new getent applet (deleting the
> > current nslookup)? (Sorry currently can't do development work due to
> > personal/health restrictions).
> I question the benefit of deleting a util
On Sun, Jul 08, 2012 at 05:36:08PM +0200, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Full ack! Are you able to provide a new getent applet (deleting the
> current nslookup)? (Sorry currently can't do development work due to
> personal/health restrictions).
I question the benefit of deleting a utility that some people
Hi Paul !
> The nslookup program does not do NSS lookup.
We are talking about Busybox nslookup. As Ralf mentioned it does NSS
lookup.
> If the busybox version of nslookup uses nsswitch.conf / ... then it's
> not correct
Sure ... Ralf told this already ... The Busybox nslookup is claiming to
do
On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 15:59 +0200, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> > >> as I've said is previous mail, I'll think on how I can create a
> > >> getent applet and pitch it up instead.
> > >
> > > That's what I meant by my comment.
> > >
> >
> > cool :)
>
> cool, yes ... but as Ralf mentioned, we already ha
> >> as I've said is previous mail, I'll think on how I can create a
> >> getent applet and pitch it up instead.
> >
> > That's what I meant by my comment.
> >
>
> cool :)
cool, yes ... but as Ralf mentioned, we already have that applet, with
just a different output format: nslookup (accepting
Hi Laurent !
Quick fix, major absolutely correct:
/etc/nsswitch contains line:
hosts: files dns
/etc/host.conf contains:
order hosts, bind
... which usually doubles something?
Harald
___
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox
On 07/08/2012 04:01 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 08:22 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 06:41 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> If you can use a getent applet instead, and one is created and added to
>>> busybox, that would be better for everyone of course.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>
On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 08:22 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 06:41 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> > If you can use a getent applet instead, and one is created and added to
> > busybox, that would be better for everyone of course.
> >
> > Cheers!
>
> offering me to use a applet that isn't eve
> It was Laurent who mentioned dnsip.
And I did for a reason.
(Time for a little rant.)
The root of the problem here is that historically, there were different
mechanisms used to perform "human-readable name" -> "IP address"
resolution. DNS was one of them, and ended up being the most widely
u
Ralf,
On 07/08/2012 03:25 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
> What I don't understand is why you even consider some kB significant if
> you have an USB storage device.
the fact that I use USB storage device doesn't means that I have plenty
of room, I have very limited root for the actual boot system.
why I
Eial Czerwacki wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:57 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Eial Czerwacki wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:27 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Looking at the source busybox-1.19.2/networking/nslookup.c it's simply
not possible that the output of system 1 comes from busybox 1.19.2.
Hi Eial !
> nslookup is not a valid option currently.
> I cannot take in account all possible outputs.
You shall not consider different outputs, you shall fix the bug here
(or at least help to fix). It is not correct that you receive different
output format. With correct output nslookup shall giv
Harald,
On 07/08/2012 02:04 PM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Different DHCP server config shall not give different nslookup output
> if device is configured for same IP address. So there is usually
> something wrong. I think it's best to find the reason for this
> difference and to fix it.
>
> Otherwis
Harald Becker wrote:
By the way, the applet nslookup is misleading, because it uses
getaddrinfo instead of a DNS query. As a consequence, there are even
answers from non existing DNS-servers.
Whops ... so Busybox nslookup does the job of 'getent hosts' (or one of
its alikes) ... and not a
On 07/08/2012 01:57 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
> Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>> On 07/08/2012 01:27 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
>>
>>> Looking at the source busybox-1.19.2/networking/nslookup.c it's simply
>>> not possible that the output of system 1 comes from busybox 1.19.2.
>>>
>> but still I do see tw
Hi Eial !
> my bed it on dhcp server config, as I cannot force someone to config
> his server in a different way, I cannot use nslookup.
Different DHCP server config shall not give different nslookup output
if device is configured for same IP address. So there is usually
something wrong. I think
Eial Czerwacki wrote:
On 07/08/2012 01:27 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
Looking at the source busybox-1.19.2/networking/nslookup.c it's simply
not possible that the output of system 1 comes from busybox 1.19.2.
but still I do see two distinct outputs on the same busybox.
Please verify that it
Hi Ralf !
> By the way, the applet nslookup is misleading, because it uses
> getaddrinfo instead of a DNS query. As a consequence, there are even
> answers from non existing DNS-servers.
Whops ... so Busybox nslookup does the job of 'getent hosts' (or one of
its alikes) ... and not a separate D
Harald,
On 07/08/2012 01:33 PM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> It was Laurent who mentioned dnsip. You mixed only things and I tried
> to clarify this.
indeed but I don't think that is it relevant anymore.
> ping is not a candidate to just query an IP address. Completely
> different purpose -> don't use
Ralf,
On 07/08/2012 01:27 PM, Ralf Friedl wrote:
> Looking at the source busybox-1.19.2/networking/nslookup.c it's simply
> not possible that the output of system 1 comes from busybox 1.19.2.
>
but still I do see two distinct outputs on the same busybox.
> By the way, the applet nslookup is mi
Hi Eial !
> we've agreed in an off list mail thread that getent is the right
> course of action here, why does dnsip should change it?
It was Laurent who mentioned dnsip. You mixed only things and I tried
to clarify this.
> I still fail to see the issue, why this is different then previously
> d
Eial Czerwacki wrote:
system 1:
nslookup skynet
Server: 10.200.10.20
Address:10.200.10.20#53
Name: skynet
Address: 10.200.10.20
system 2:
nslookup skynet
Server:10.200.10.20
Address 1: 10.200.10.20 skynet
Name: skynet
Address 1: 10.200.10.20 skynet
both use the s
Harald,
On 07/08/2012 12:34 PM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> It looks to me, you still mix up some information. Here we talked about
> a DNS query program (e.g. host or dnsip) and now you are asking about
> the libc function getaddrinfo. I'm not sure if I understand, what are
> you asking?
>
> getaddri
Hi Eial !
> I thought we've finished the getent vs host discussion.
> > dnsip is an example of a full DNS query program like the host
> > command from bind. My explanation decision was more general, not
> > specific to an implementation.
> doesn't getaddrinfo provides that?
It looks to me, you s
Harald,
On 07/08/2012 09:24 AM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Thats what we are talking about !
>
> On one hand, simple IP lookup using libc function (gethostbyname), on
> the other hand, full DNS query (like host command).
I thought we've finished the getent vs host discussion.
> dnsip is an example
Hi Eial !
> > You are not right. It is not the same behavior!
> what is the difference then?
Thats what we are talking about !
On one hand, simple IP lookup using libc function (gethostbyname), on
the other hand, full DNS query (like host command).
> > You can find the IP address of a name wit
Harald,
>
> You are not right. It is not the same behavior!
>
what is the difference then?
> You can find the IP address of a name with less code, correct, but this
> uses the libc implementation of the resolver and does not the same kind
> of work a DNS client does. So the decision is first,
On 07/05/2012 06:41 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 17:13 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>> On 07/05/2012 02:03 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
but these bins are large, my applet adds at most 3kb to the total size.
>>>
>>> My statically linked "dnsip" applet is 27 kB. This does not qu
Hi Eial !
> for me it does, way to big when one can get the same behavior in a
> fraction of the size.
You are not right. It is not the same behavior!
You can find the IP address of a name with less code, correct, but this
uses the libc implementation of the resolver and does not the same kind
o
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 17:13 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> On 07/05/2012 02:03 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >> but these bins are large, my applet adds at most 3kb to the total size.
> >
> > My statically linked "dnsip" applet is 27 kB. This does not qualify as
> > "large" by any means on a full-f
On 07/05/2012 02:03 PM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>> but these bins are large, my applet adds at most 3kb to the total size.
>
> My statically linked "dnsip" applet is 27 kB. This does not qualify as
> "large" by any means on a full-fledged Unix platform (even an embedded one),
> especially compared
> but these bins are large, my applet adds at most 3kb to the total size.
My statically linked "dnsip" applet is 27 kB. This does not qualify as
"large" by any means on a full-fledged Unix platform (even an embedded one),
especially compared to the BIND "host" binary.
You really have to figure
On 07/04/2012 10:57 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
>
> You don't have to have *only* busybox on your embedded box.
> Functionality that is not (yet) implemented in busybox can sometimes
> be found elsewhere.
>
> You could download and compile djbdns ( http://cr.yp.to/djbdns.html )
> (you don't nee
> as said before, my needs are bound to getting the ip using dns as my usb
> drive imaeg is "closed" in the matter that I don't want edit the hosts
> file all the time.
You don't have to have *only* busybox on your embedded box.
Functionality that is not (yet) implemented in busybox can sometime
On 07/04/2012 10:18 AM, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> On 07/04/2012 10:02 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean. There's no need to add parsing
>> for /etc/hosts to anything. The library already has that parsing code;
>> it's all embedded under the gethostbyname() function.
On 07/04/2012 10:02 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
>
> I don't understand what you mean. There's no need to add parsing
> for /etc/hosts to anything. The library already has that parsing code;
> it's all embedded under the gethostbyname() function. Since you're
> already invoking gethostbyname() you're
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 09:14 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> that is right but assuming /etc/hosts parsing is added, how can we be
> sure that there isn't any changes in file format?
I don't understand what you mean. There's no need to add parsing
for /etc/hosts to anything. The library already ha
Hello Harald,
> If there will ever be a change in host file format the libc will honor
> that change I ought.
>
> You do not need to add an extra parser for /etc/hosts. This parser is
> part of the libc and usually there. And that is the difference: If you
> want a simple interface to query an
Hello Harald,
> It does not depend on the output format, it depends on how you query
> the IP address. The host command only queries the remote DNS server and
> does NOT use local libc functions for name query. That is you directly
> send network packets to DNS server and parse server responses.
Hi Eial !
> in that case I think that keeping it the host format is the right
> thing to do.
It does not depend on the output format, it depends on how you query
the IP address. The host command only queries the remote DNS server and
does NOT use local libc functions for name query. That is you d
On 07/04/2012 09:00 AM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 08:07 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>
> I didn't see your implementation in detail, but if it uses
> gethostbyname() or gethostent() etc. functions in GLIBC, then it IS NOT
> the standard host(1) utility.
>
> The host(1) utility co
Hi Paul!
> I'm not sure what you mean by emulated functions.
Busybox emulates the functionality of the standard getent functions for
passwd, shadow, group and gshadow files to bypass the usual need of
nsswitch and it's need of extra libraries. This behavior of Busybox may
be configured during bui
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 08:07 +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> does getent needs a valid host file in the system?
>
> after viewing both host and getent I'm sure that host is exactly what
> I've implemented. I don't think it is a good idea to base the
> implementation on getent.
I didn't see your imp
Hello Harald,
> No !
>
> In glibc gethostbyname (getaddrinfo is a different entry to same
> functionality) uses the nsswitch and usually checks the local
> addresses first (if not configured differently). Only the host command
> from bind ignores local addresses.
>
> $ host NAME
> --> only query
Hi Eial !
> so gethostbyname (or getaddrinfo as suggested by Baruch) doesn't
> checks the local /etc/host first?
No !
In glibc gethostbyname (getaddrinfo is a different entry to same
functionality) uses the nsswitch and usually checks the local
addresses first (if not configured differently). On
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 04:08 +0200, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi Paul!
>
> > IMHO we shouldn't be inventing new applets for busybox.
> > ...
> > Creating applets with no precedent in other UNIX/POSIX
> > systems is (again IMHO) not a good idea for busybox.
>
> In principle you are right, but Busybox i
Hello Harald,
On 07/04/2012 08:34 AM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi Eial !
>
>> does getent needs a valid host file in the system?
>
> First of all, an empty file is a valid host file. As a missing file is
> usually assumed to equal an empty file, the host file doesn't need to
> be there either.
>
Hi Eial !
> does getent needs a valid host file in the system?
First of all, an empty file is a valid host file. As a missing file is
usually assumed to equal an empty file, the host file doesn't need to
be there either.
> after viewing both host and getent I'm sure that host is exactly what
> I
On 07/04/2012 05:08 AM, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi Paul!
>
>> IMHO we shouldn't be inventing new applets for busybox.
>> ...
>> Creating applets with no precedent in other UNIX/POSIX
>> systems is (again IMHO) not a good idea for busybox.
>
> In principle you are right, but Busybox is used on many
Hi Paul!
> IMHO we shouldn't be inventing new applets for busybox.
> ...
> Creating applets with no precedent in other UNIX/POSIX
> systems is (again IMHO) not a good idea for busybox.
In principle you are right, but Busybox is used on many small systems
where several higher functions are control
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 11:36 -0400, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 10:58, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
> >>> So it might be a good idea for Eial to model this new applet on
> >>> glibc's "getent" command
> >
> >> I cannot find any reference to glibc's "getent" command, can you point
> >> me to su
On 2012-07-03 10:58, ra...@gmx.de wrote:
So it might be a good idea for Eial to model this new applet on
glibc's "getent" command
I cannot find any reference to glibc's "getent" command, can you point
me to such reference?
What about this one? Is it the right one??
http://perkamon.alioth.deb
Am 03.07.2012 16:48, schrieb Eial Czerwacki:
> On 07/03/2012 05:39 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
>
>> On 2012-07-03 05:11, Baruch Siach wrote:
>>> Hi Eial,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:57:50AM +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
all this
On 2012-07-03 05:11, Baruch Siach wrote:
Hi Eial,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:57:50AM +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
all this applet does is to get a host name and return the first ip address.
IMHO, this applet should be called 'host', just like t
> > So it might be a good idea for Eial to model this new applet on
> > glibc's "getent" command
> I cannot find any reference to glibc's "getent" command, can you point
> me to such reference?
What about this one? Is it the right one??
http://perkamon.alioth.debian.org/online/man1/getent.1.php
_
On 07/03/2012 05:39 PM, Joshua Judson Rosen wrote:
> On 2012-07-03 05:11, Baruch Siach wrote:
>> Hi Eial,
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:57:50AM +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>>> I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
>>> all this applet does is to get a host name and return the first i
Hello Baruch,
On 07/03/2012 12:11 PM, Baruch Siach wrote:
> Hi Eial,
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:57:50AM +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
>> I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
>> all this applet does is to get a host name and return the first ip address.
>
> IMHO, this applet shoul
Hi Eial,
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:57:50AM +0300, Eial Czerwacki wrote:
> I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
> all this applet does is to get a host name and return the first ip address.
IMHO, this applet should be called 'host', just like the similarly named BIND
utility.
[snip]
Hello All,
I'd like to propose a new applet, gethostbyname.
all this applet does is to get a host name and return the first ip address.
the reason for this applet is that I have a embedded boot image build
with busybox what queries me on boot for a hostname and runs a bin which
tries to connect t
60 matches
Mail list logo
