Report information
The Basics
Id:
46592
Status:
resolved
Priority:
Low/Low
Queue:
bind9-public
People
Owner:
Nobody in particular
Requestors:
Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
Cc:
AdminCc:
BugTracker
Version Fixed:
(no value)
Version Found:
(no value)
Versions Affected:
(no value)
Versions Planned:
(no value)
Priority:
P2 Normal
Severity:
S2 Normal
CVSS Score:
(no value)
CVE ID:
(no value)
Component:
(no value)
Area:
Other
Dates
Created:Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:29:28 -0500
Updated:Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:40:23 -0500
Closed:Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:40:23 -0500

This bug tracker is no longer active.

Please go to our Gitlab to submit issues (both feature requests and bug reports) for active projects maintained by Internet Systems Consortium (ISC).

Due to security and confidentiality requirements, full access is limited to the primary maintainers.

History
  Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:29:31 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Ticket created
Subject: Use DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in 9.9 and 9.10
From: marka@isc.org
To: bind9-public@isc.org
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:29:28 -1000

Use local copies of DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in 9.9 and 9.10 to make back porting future changes easier.
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:56:46 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Status changed from 'new' to 'review'
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:56:47 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Severity S2 Normal added
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:56:47 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Priority P2 Normal added
Mon, 13 Nov 2017 22:56:47 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Area feature changed to Other
  Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:24:28 -0500 Evan Hunt <Evan_Hunt@isc.org> - Correspondence added

Why redefine DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in so many places? Is there a reason not to put them in name.h? Aside from that, seems fine.
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:24:29 -0500 Evan Hunt <Evan_Hunt@isc.org> - Given to Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
  Sun, 26 Nov 2017 18:09:20 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Correspondence added
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 10:09:12 +1100
To: bind9-public@isc.org
From: "Mark Andrews" <marka@isc.org>
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #46592] Use DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in 9.9 and 9.10

> On 27 Nov 2017, at 9:24 am, Evan Hunt via RT <bind9-public@isc.org> wrote: > > Why redefine DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in so many > places? Is there a reason not to put them in name.h? It would be a functional change then. Currently this is just keeping the code mostly consistent between versions. > Aside from that, seems fine. > > -- > Ticket History: https://bugs.isc.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=46592 -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
  Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:11:08 -0500 Evan Hunt <each@isc.org> - Correspondence added
CC:
Subject: Re: [ISC-Bugs #46592] Use DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE in 9.9 and 9.10
From: "Evan Hunt" <each@isc.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 02:11:03 +0000
To: "Mark Andrews via RT" <bind9-public@isc.org>

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 11:09:20PM +0000, Mark Andrews via RT wrote: > It would be a functional change then. Currently this is just keeping the code mostly consistent between versions. They're macros, not functions. It wouldn't affect API numbering. Okay to commit either way, but I don't see the need for duplicate definitions.
  Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:40:22 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Correspondence added

4817. [cleanup] Use DNS_NAME_INITABSOLUTE and DNS_NAME_INITNONABSOLUTE. [RT #45433]
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:40:23 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Status changed from 'review' to 'resolved'
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 21:40:23 -0500 Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> - Untaken