[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: PF_LOCAL in getaddrinfo (ldapi:///)
- To: Oscar Bonilla <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: PF_LOCAL in getaddrinfo (ldapi:///)
- From: Stig Venaas <Stig@OpenLDAP.org>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 12:26:06 +0200
- Cc: openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org
- In-reply-to: <20010723201937.A6484@itea.ntnu.no>; from Stig@OpenLDAP.org on Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +0200
- References: <20010723114917.A9894@galileo.edu> <20010723201937.A6484@itea.ntnu.no>
On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:19:37PM +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
> I had planned to respond to your ITS report.
Hmm, I can't find any report now, maybe it was just my imagination.
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 11:49:17AM -0600, Oscar Bonilla wrote:
> > I was trying to compile OpenLDAP 2.0.11 with support for ldapi:///
> > which uses the PF_LOCAL family. However, I've discovered that
> > the PF_LOCAL entry in getaddrinfo is ifdef'd out in FreeBSD.
I've been discussing this with several developers. It was supported
by getaddrinfo() on Linux (and also KAME long ago), but it is being
removed, so it is clear that we shouldn't use it. I've now changed
devel to not use getaddrinfo() and we should also change in 2.0. Even
though I'm pretty sure that change is fine, please test it. You can
either try devel, or you should be able to apply the patch at
to the version you're using. The patch is large but the change is small.
> > Is this an error in the way OpenLDAP uses getaddrinfo or is there
> > a reason for the OS's not supporting AF_LOCAL in calls to getaddrinfo?
In my opinion there's no reason not to implement it, but PF_LOCAL with
getaddrinfo() is of limited use.