From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sun Jul 16 21:33:09 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id VAA27788
          for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:33:09 -0700
Received: from Root.COM (implode.Root.COM [198.145.90.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id VAA27780
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:33:07 -0700
Received: from corbin.Root.COM (corbin [198.145.90.18]) by Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with ESMTP id VAA14719; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:32:29 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corbin.Root.COM (8.6.11/8.6.5) with SMTP id VAA03601; Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:33:42 -0700
Message-Id: <199507170433.VAA03601@corbin.Root.COM>
To: Peter Wemm <peter@haywire.dialix.com>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: utmp ut_host field 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 95 11:33:05 +0800."
             <Pine.SV4.3.91.950717111100.6057A@haywire.DIALix.COM> 
From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM>
Reply-To: davidg@Root.COM
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:33:41 -0700
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>>    I would be willing to compromise, however. If you would like to make the
>> lookup an option rather than the default, I would have no problem with this.
>> 'w' has a -n option to disable the feature, but I hate the feature being the
>> default.
>
>I have another alternative..
>
>Would you be willing to allow specifing a really small resolver timeout for 
>these commands? say 2 seconds?
>
>This would add only a couple of lines to the code, and would be a pretty 
>reasonable alternative to the existing 75 second timeout.

   That would definately be an improvement...

>Something like this:
>  #include <resolv.h>
>  if (!(_res.options & RES_INIT))
>	  res_init();
>  _res.retrans = 2;
>  _res.retry = 0;
>
>As for making it not the default, I'd be quite happy to do this myself if 
>you'd let me use an environment variable to enable it for the utilities 
>that care.. :-)  (you know, like "BLOCKSIZE", which most of the disk 
>utilities respect when reporting disk units (df, du, etc)).

   What would you like to call it? PETERSGOODSTUFF? :-) If you can find one
that makes some logical sense...
   What do other people think?

-DG