On 11/17/24 5:46 AM, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > Without further ado, the following was found: > > Issue: No "in succession" here on purpose? > > "When no I<key> is provided, use B<sethostent>(3), B<gethostent>(3), and " > "B<endhostent>(3) to enumerate the hosts database. When one or more I<key> " > "arguments are provided, pass each I<key> to B<gethostbyaddr>(3) or " > "B<gethostbyname2>(3), depending on whether a call to B<inet_pton>(3) " > "indicates that the I<key> is an IPv6 or IPv4 address or not, and display the " > "result." This text is for the "hosts" database. > … and in many other paragraphs (I can provide you the full list). Last > time you said, that this is under review with glibc - are there any > results on this? As an upstream glibc maintainer I can comment on this. The getent program today iterates over the keys passing them in succession to the calls as listed for the "hosts" database i.e. nss/getent.c:hosts_keys. I think the text could be improved by making it consistent for "hosts." Each one of these instances is different so they each should be enumerated and reviewed separately. -- Cheers, Carlos.
