Em Tue, May 13, 2008 at 08:50:59AM -0700, David Stevens escreveu: > Are they mutually exclusive? > > Why not add SOCK_DGRAM/IPPROTO_DCCP support while leaving Because DCCP is not SOCK_DGRAM at all? :) > the existing stuff alone, and then requiring programs that want to use > getaddrinfo to use it that way? I wonder what is the problem with doing what I did when adding support for DCCP in ttcp, or for AF_LLC in ssh, ncftp, vsftpd, etc, i.e. getaddrinfo/getnameinfo wrappers that look if SOCK_DCCP or AF_LLC are being asked for and doing the right thing. IIRC at the time I asked Ulrich Drepper about adding support for PF_LLC sockets in glibc and he said that it would be OK as long as it didn't included PF_LLC sockets in the default search, doing it only when PF_LLC was explicitely passed. I just never got around to actually cook up the patches and send it to Uli. What would be the problem of SOCK_DCCP being handled in glibc in such a fashion? - Arnaldo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dccp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
