> I actually am certain that raising privileges on the local machine should not require networking bits at all.
> There is no real reason why that should be done. No real dependency of the network,
> unlike the X system that is actually meant and thought for networking.
In your own terms: The `sudo` system _IS_ "meant and thought for networking!"
And even so, resolving the _LOCAL_ hostname is not "networking bits."
> And once again, my point of view: raising privileges on the LOCAL machine should NOT require networking bits. NEVER.
You are willfully ignorant of and blurring the line between _LOCAL_ hostname and "networking bits."
The _LOCAL_ hostname _IS_ mandatory and does not constitute "networking bits."
> Of course it is no bug in the sense that it breaks any specified contract, but
> ubuntu does not have a password for root and sudo is the only way to repair a wrong /etc/hosts.
> I actually am certain that raising privileges on the local machine should not require networking bits at all.
> There is no real reason why that should be done. No real dependency of the network,
> unlike the X system that is actually meant and thought for networking.
In your own terms: The `sudo` system _IS_ "meant and thought for networking!"
And even so, resolving the _LOCAL_ hostname is not "networking bits."
> And once again, my point of view: raising privileges on the LOCAL machine should NOT require networking bits. NEVER.
You are willfully ignorant of and blurring the line between _LOCAL_ hostname and "networking bits."
The _LOCAL_ hostname _IS_ mandatory and does not constitute "networking bits."
> Of course it is no bug in the sense that it breaks any specified contract, but
> ubuntu does not have a password for root and sudo is the only way to repair a wrong /etc/hosts.
Precisely, I say that this non- bug can be closed/ resolved/ cancelled! /bugs.launchpad .net/ubuntu/ +source/ rescue/ +bug/19553
Discussion of repairing the _local_ hostname configuration is already here: https:/