proposal for file: uri standard
alexl at redhat.com
Fri Apr 9 23:19:05 EEST 2004
On Wed, 2004-04-07 at 17:22, John Dennis wrote:
> I assume the issue here is whether the hostname is FQDN (Fully Qualified
> Domain Name). gethostname may or may not return a FQDN. It is not a
> misconfiguration or error if the name returned by gethostname is not
> FQDN. Further it is not an error (but bad practice) for the returned
> hostname to not match the DNS name of the host (this can occur if you
> call sethostname). Using gethostbyname should return the DNS FQDN, which
> is much more canonical and I think is more in line with the desired
What would you pass to gethostbyname? What if the machine in question
has no real FQDN that makes sense (as is the case for many non-syadmined
machines with e.g. dialup connections)? What if you have several
interfaces with different names on?
The number one priority is to get a name that is unique for all apps
generating the hostname for the uri so that strcmp() works to detect if
the hostname in a uri is from the same host. Everything else is just
gravy, which on a well configured system will allow you to do some magic
to handle files on remote machines.
> Just as a nit, and I'm not 100% sure about this, if some has reset the
> hostname I'm not sure passing that to gethostbyname will do the right
> thing, it might be better to call gethostbyaddr. But that's a real
> corner case and I wouldn't lose sleep over it. I think the real issue is
> that its not unusual for gethostname to return a hostname without its
> domain information.
Frequently machines that do this also have no sane fqdn. Its also not
insane to assume that fancy handling of remote hosts in file:// uris
only work well if you set up gethostname() on the remote machine to
return a fqdn.
Alexander Larsson Red Hat, Inc
alexl at redhat.com alla at lysator.liu.se
He's a maverick drug-addicted messiah on the edge. She's a supernatural punk
politician who dreams of becoming Elvis. They fight crime!
More information about the xdg