[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Weird bugs

From: Jason Kim
Subject: Re: Weird bugs
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 17:26:30 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.8.1

On Wednesday 05 October 2005 15:17, Mark Burgess wrote:
> Jason, I'm not sure if you have told us what version you are using. Is
> it the latest one? 
I've confirmed these bugs on 2.1.15, planning on testing 2.1.16 this week. 
However you've said that there were no major changes, so I assumed that if 
any of what I was saying rang a bell you'd point it out. If these happen to 
disappear with the new version, I will happily stop bugging you :-)

> I am a bit sceptical about the need for such large
> patches when hundred of people seem to be getting on fine.
Again, I realize that the things I'm seeing are relatively minor, but they are 
still things that are broken and could be fixed. Hundreds of people may be 
fine with extraneous log files and malformed email subject lines (personally 
I could really care less), but I happen to have very picky eyes on this 
project, and saying "oh, just ignore that" doesn't really cut it. However I 
am in a position to try to improve things, so I'm offering my help.

> Your message is hard to read, and is full of opinions rather than clear
> facts. If there is a problem I would like to help, but I tend to ignore
> long emails without clear content for lack of time. Best strategy to
> prompt me into action is short and clear.
I can understand and appreciate this, that's why I keep trying :-) I'll try to 
summarize below:

* When cfexecd sends email, the from address can be (in some circumstances) 
set differently in the smtp 'MAIL FROM:' and the 'From:' header set in the 
message data. Is this behavior desired? If not, I offer to help fix it. If 
so, there seem to be some oddities which I would like to clarify.

* There are extraneous cfengine.*.runlog files getting generated. I have 
studied the code extensively, and have come to the conclusion that cfexecd 
has some flaws in the way it resolves hostnames. Assuming you agree to this 
conclusion, I can offer a possible resolution, including a patch if you do 
not have the time to provide assistance. All I ask is some guidance in 
understanding your original intent.

Those are the two issues at a very high level. I can provide detailed 
instructions on replicating the problems and snippets of code where I believe 
things to be in error, but in the interests of keeping things simple to pique 
your interest I will leave it at that. Thanks for your time...

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]