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

Re: ifupdown-extra upload to stable-proposed-updates

2011/6/13 Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 23:25 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> The last of the changes in the list above has this changelog entry
> associated with it:
> +  * if-up-scripts/static-routes:
> +      - Fix typo that prevent the script from adding routes as it expected them
> +        to have 'reject' when they shouldn't. Thanks to Mathieu Parent and
> +        to Petru Ratiu for the patches. (Closes: #613632, #458395) (LP: #631533)
> but actually appears to both fix a bug (the inverted sense of the
> "reject" test) and introduce new functionality relative to the current
> version in stable, namely the adding of routes which _do_ have "reject"
> associated with them.  Is that correct?

You are right. I will strip off the new functionality and just fix the bug.

> The second query is more of a comment really.  I appreciate that this
> isn't a regression from the previous matching code, but it seems to me
> that this:
>  add_static_routes() {
> -       cat $ROUTEFILE | egrep "${IFACE}$" |
> +       cat $ROUTEFILE | egrep "^[^#].*${IFACE}$" |
> will match a line of "foo bareth0" in the route file where $IFACE
> contains "eth0".  I'm not sure if this is an issue in practical use of
> the package though.

Hmmm.. .it is not fully a regression since it behaves similarly to how
it did previously, but the regular expression could be improved so
that it only matched $IFACE when it is a full word and not part of it.
It is not that common to have similarly named interfaces, but I do
agree that this, under some circumstances, could trigger a bug.

I will ammend the regular expression in unstable and in the upload to

It is my understanding that fixing these two issues I could go ahead
and do an unpload to 'stable'?



Reply to: