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. Okay > > 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