From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jul 17 00:59:48 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id AAA11023 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:59:48 -0700 Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id AAA11017 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:59:46 -0700 Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id AAA12577 for ; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 00:59:21 -0700 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de with SMTP (5.67b+/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA27181; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:53:45 +0200 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id JAA07997 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:53:45 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id JAA05185 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:33:28 +0200 From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199507170733.JAA05185@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: utmp ut_host field To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:33:28 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) In-Reply-To: <199507170433.VAA03601@corbin.Root.COM> from "David Greenman" at Jul 16, 95 09:33:41 pm Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 1328 Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk As David Greenman wrote: > > >Something like this: > > #include > > 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? Implement the 2-second timeout. This is 2.2-Development, it should be open for experiments. Install the command (as an exception to our normal policy to run a RELEASE) on freefall. If it's still spamming, disable the default and hack it via the environment, or better yet, implement it as shell aliases in the default /etc/csh.cshrc and /etc/profiles, so the casual users won't complain about the change. OTOH, David, you could use an alias as well. :-) Changing the default behaviour of a long-standing application just to the opposite is never a good idea. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)