Subj : Re: Which Format for the hosts File is Correct?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : Larry I Smith
Date : Mon Dec 06 2004 04:27 pm

HansF wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:49:32 +0000, Larry I Smith wrote:
> 
> 
>>HansF wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 08:22:16 +0100, Sybren Stuvel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The correct syntax is ip, fqdn, aliases.
>>>>
>>>>Sybren
>>>
>>>
>>>Any documented reference to back that up?  
>>>
>>>I agree that the fqdn should generally be the second field.  But so far
>>>my research has only indicated that it be a 'canonical' hostname, and
>>>(like the OP) I have not found a reference that authortatively states that
>>>'canonical' should be 'fqdn'.
>>>
>>>/Hans
>>
>>Here's the text from 'man 5 hosts':
>>
>>
> 
> [man page snipped]
> 
>>---------
>>
>>Regards,
>>Larry
> 
> 
> Thanks for that.  It looks a lot like the man page on my system that I
> referenced before I posted ...
> 
> ... and I still do not see any place that states that a canonical host
> name is the same as a FQDN.  (It's not even in RFC 952, from what I can
> tell.)
> 
> /Hans

Well, I thought the 'EXAMPLE' section was pretty specific.....

'canonical' and 'fully qualified' are used interchangeably in
most situations (think of the filesystem: the canonical and
fully qualified expansion of '~bob' is '/home/bob').

Using fully qualified names in 'hosts' will always work, so
why all of the discussion concerning 'canonical' vs. 'fully
qualified'????

Regards,
Larry

-- 
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

.