© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
0f7b58d
(Get the code!)
> I'm not very keen on this from an SRU perspective. RFC or not, it's really a feature addition
This is a bug. RFC1035 describes how long a hostname must be, and httpd was not honouring the RFC. This doesn't implement "longer hostnames", this implements RFC compliant hostnames.
The httpd project has ABI guarantees in the v2.4 release series. This meant we had to support the older fields unchanged, while at the same time introducing new compliant fields. This is well established and well understood at httpd and is not out of the ordinary.
> Do we really need this in an SRU? Can affected users use shorter hostnames instead?
No.
The longer answer is "epically no". We have a huge estate of machines, all with names that are both descriptive and unique, and therefore long. There is no option to make them shorter. Instead of hacking around bugs, let's fix them.