From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 27 20:37:57 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E39916A419; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:37:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (tim.des.no [194.63.250.121]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5F413C43E; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:37:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: from tim.des.no (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spam.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0547B2087; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:37:49 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Tests: AWL X-Spam-Learn: disabled X-Spam-Score: -0.2/3.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on tim.des.no Received: from ds4.des.no (des.no [80.203.243.180]) by smtp.des.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3212B2083; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:37:48 +0100 (CET) Received: by ds4.des.no (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1ED7F8449F; Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:37:48 +0100 (CET) From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= To: Robert Watson References: <86d4rn1kln.fsf@ds4.des.no> <86sl0jywii.fsf@ds4.des.no> <86abmryun9.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20080127184656.B60477@fledge.watson.org> Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:37:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20080127184656.B60477@fledge.watson.org> (Robert Watson's message of "Sun\, 27 Jan 2008 18\:48\:25 +0000 \(GMT\)") Message-ID: <86myqrxaw3.fsf@ds4.des.no> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.1 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: resolver change? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:37:57 -0000 Robert Watson writes: > A casual glance suggests no pertinent changes in that timeframe -- > however, were you just updating your kernel, or also userspace, and in > particular, libc? No, this is the weird thing. I'm starting to think I'm imagining it all... But this *definitely* worked correctly on January 13, and *definitely* didn't work correctly on January 21, nor does it work correctly today. > What happens if you back out getaddrinfo.c:1.86: I've been running with that version of getaddrinfo.c since long before it stopped working. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no