On Sun, Jun 24, 2001 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > The problem is that the library patches (httplib, ftplib, etc) do use > getaddrinfo to find out how to contact a remote system, which is the > right thing to do IMO. So even if the IPv6 support can be activated > only if desired, getaddrinfo absolutely has to work. Why ? Why can't those parts be 'if it exists'-ed out ? We do it for SSL support. I'm only comfortable with the IPv6 patch if it's optional, or can at least be disabled. I haven't looked at the patch, but why is getaddrinfo absolutely necessary, if the code works without it now, too ? > So the only question then is where we get an implementation of these > functions if the system doesn't provide one. itojun has suggested the > WIDE libraries; since they apparently don't compile on Windows, I've > suggested the MS TP emulation. If the latter is not acceptable, we > either have to fix the WIDE implementation to work on Windows also; > As for the problems Mark reported: I think they can get fixed. What about the zillion other 'obscure' ports ? OS/2 ? Palm ? MacOS 9 ;) If this patch can't be zero-impact-if-necessary, I'm a firm -1 on it. But I don't think it can't, it just takes more work. -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4