[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 in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 12:42:06AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Sat 21 Jan 2012 23:45:24 +0100, a écrit :
> > Andrew Pollock, le Wed 11 Jan 2012 22:12:11 -0800, a écrit :
> > > I'm expecting to have a face-to-face meeting with the ISC DHCP folks next week,
> > > and the Hurd situation is one of the topics of discussion. If the stakeholders
> > > from debian-hurd want me to convey anything in particular, then now's the time
> > > to speak up.
> > 
> > So, did you have the opportunity to discuss with ISC about it?
> Ah, Pino pointed me at your planet.debian.org post.
> I have to say I'm a bit surprised that the patch generates so much
> discussion around it, but not about its content.  Did they see my
> updated patch with comments?  There are basically three things in it:

Yes, this is the patch we discussed.

I'm expecting you'll receive something via the ISC, but I'll try to remember
what was said.
> - 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. I imagine they're worried about how this
would behave on other non-Linux OSes that don't use glibc but do have

They asked if it were possible to add PATH_MAX compatibility to the Hurd
instead, since it's an OS that is under development.

> - 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.

> - 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?
> 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. Have you
tried starting a conversation on the dhcp-users list?

There's also https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-hackers

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: