From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GOrz6-0006Vt-IZ for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:26:40 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8H8Q4K9023522; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:26:04 GMT Received: from desiato.digimed.co.uk (82-69-83-178.dsl.in-addr.zen.co.uk [82.69.83.178]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8H8LdYG027082 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 08:21:39 GMT Received: from krikkit.digimed.co.uk (krikkit.digimed.co.uk [192.168.1.3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by desiato.digimed.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96A161C66 for ; Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:21:38 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:21:36 +0100 From: Neil Bothwick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the new "domainname" situation? Message-ID: <20060917092136.17053e2d@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <1878303.AA6ZmqbnTS@m-id.message-center.info> References: <450CCF71.7020007@veldy.net> <1878303.AA6ZmqbnTS@m-id.message-center.info> Organization: Digital Media Production X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.5.0-rc3 (GTK+ 2.8.20; powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu) X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7260 0F33 97EC 2F1E 7667 FE37 BA6E 1A97 4375 1903 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_zoGvXDbSeLcM711QjdeE.Ly; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1 X-Archives-Salt: a287660a-de57-468e-951b-94aa7c716498 X-Archives-Hash: 63c34bed233d2af6d9cd1b5c9ee8c6d2 --Sig_zoGvXDbSeLcM711QjdeE.Ly Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a=20 > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface! =20 >=20 > True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface. Exactly, the current system gives the choice of setting it globally or per-interface in the same file. > But I agree, it makes no sense to even be able to set this per > interface. I can think of a couple of uses for this. A laptop with wired and wireless interfaces. wired is only used on the "home" network, with a fixed domain. wireless is used in multiple locations with the domain set via DHCP. A server with multiple interfaces, running different domains on each, although this could also be done with virtual hosts. --=20 Neil Bothwick "Apple I" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton. --Sig_zoGvXDbSeLcM711QjdeE.Ly Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFDQWRum4al0N1GQMRAmmPAJ9KLpONmMSht6x0t60q5qZgeEt1/wCfRQqA Tgn3cQXHkkbgoFoJcOxKzD8= =dW7B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_zoGvXDbSeLcM711QjdeE.Ly-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list