Re: Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
- To: Andrew Pollock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Cc: Ian Jackson <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, debian-hurd <email@example.com>, Bug hurd mailing list <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
- From: Samuel Thibault <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:12:15 +0100
- Message-id: <20120122001215.GX4958@type.famille.thibault.fr>
- Mail-followup-to: Andrew Pollock <email@example.com>, Ian Jackson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, debian-hurd <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Bug hurd mailing list <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: <20120121235750.GN1901@daedalus.andrew.net.au>
- References: <m2n.s.1Ratc2email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <m2n.s.1RbY5Zemail@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20120112061211.GA9022@icarus.andrew.net.au> <20120121224524.GN4958@type.famille.thibault.fr> <20120121234206.GV4958@type.famille.thibault.fr> <20120121235750.GN1901@daedalus.andrew.net.au>
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.
> 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.
> > - 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?
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.
> Have you tried starting a conversation on the dhcp-users list?
> 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?