On Sun, Apr 12, 2015 at 6:35 AM, Lennart Poettering
<lenn...@poettering.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 10.04.15 13:03, Nick Owens (misch...@offblast.org) wrote:
>
>> From: mischief <misch...@offblast.org>
>>
>> The maximum domain name size is larger than the maximum host name size.
>> The smaller limit causes valid domains provided by DHCP or .network
>> files to be silently ignored.
>
> Hmm?
>
> Can you give an example?
>
> What is a domain name according to your definition? And what a
> hostname?
>
> So far, a hostname in my definition was either a single label, or an
> fqdn, and a domain name the part of the fqdn with the first label
> removed...
>
> With such a definition I am not sure I understand the patch, hence
> please explain, and give a valid example of where this turns out to be
> an issue?

./x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/posix1_lim.h:#define _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX 255
./x86_64-linux-gnu/bits/local_lim.h:#define HOST_NAME_MAX 64
./x86_64-linux-musl/limits.h:#define HOST_NAME_MAX 255

Perhaps we need to use _POSIX_HOST_NAME_MAX ?, or redefine HOST_NAME_MAX to 255?
>
> Lennart
>
> --
> Lennart Poettering, Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel



-- 
Liberty equality fraternity or death,

Shawn Landden
ChurchOfGit.com
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Reply via email to