[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch

From: Andrew Pollock
Subject: Re: Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 21:53:09 -0800
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 01:12:15AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Andrew Pollock, le Sat 21 Jan 2012 15:57:50 -0800, a écrit :
> > > - the PATH_MAX fix, which they _can_ check on GNU/Linux, since GNU/Linux
> > > uses glibc.
> > 
> > One of the concerns with this patch was that it was conditional not on the
> > Hurd OS, but on glibc being in use. I think they'd rather see this be
> > explicitly conditional on Hurd.
> Well, if they prefer that, then fine.

That's probably a good start.
> > I imagine they're worried about how this would behave on other
> > non-Linux OSes that don't use glibc but do have PATH_MAX?
> You mean they don't like not testing that other codepath with Linux?
> Then let's keep the new patch Hurd-only, that's fine.

> > They asked if it were possible to add PATH_MAX compatibility to the Hurd
> > instead, since it's an OS that is under development.
> It has always been a will *not* to define PATH_MAX in GNU/Hurd.

So out of curiosity, how much other software has issues as a result?
> > > - the get_hw_addr changes, which does not actually change any code,
> > > but simply uses existing code in a case which would not even compile
> > > otherwise.
> > 
> > I'm not sure if there was specific feedback on this chunk of the patch.
> Ok.
> > > - the bind change, which just makes GNU/Hurd use the same thing as
> > > GNU/Linux.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure the BIND change (if it's the change to configure that I
> > think it is) has already been accepted (in a slightly different form). I'll
> > try to check in with them regularly between now and 4.2.3 to make sure that
> > that fix is going to be in it. Does BIND build okay on Hurd?
> BIND itself builds ok, yes, simply with ipv6 disabled (see #651001). The
> issue is the mixture of bind and dhcpd code, where the bind side does
> not enable ipv6, and dhcpd enables it.
> > > So in the end, the first part is not trivial but can be checked on Linux
> > > (and actually fixes a bug), and the second and third part look trivial
> > > to me, thus the wonder.
> > 
> > I think we'll get there, eventually. It might just take a while.
> Well, we'd like to manage to release with wheezy.

Okay I'll keep that in mind.
> > Have you tried starting a conversation on the dhcp-users list?
> > (https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users)
> > 
> > There's also https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-hackers
> We have not tried, but if that's the way we can directly discuss the
> patch with them, then we should probably do it. dhcp-hackers seems very
> low-volume, I guess dhcp-users might be preferable?

Try -hackers first and if you don't get a response after a week or so, try
-users. Or just cross-post and be done with it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

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