Date: Sun, 16 Jul 1995 21:33:41 -0700 From: David Greenman <davidg@Root.COM> To: Peter Wemm <peter@haywire.dialix.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: utmp ut_host field Message-ID: <199507170433.VAA03601@corbin.Root.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jul 95 11:33:05 %2B0800." <Pine.SV4.3.91.950717111100.6057A@haywire.DIALix.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199507170433.VAA03601>