Hi Carlos, On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 08:14:48AM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > 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." Thanks! > > Each one of these instances is different so they each should be enumerated and reviewed > separately. Would you mind proposing some patches? Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
