Re: Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 02:20:55PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > So far our (Debian's) communications with dhcpd upstream on this topic > seem to be lacking in this area. If you like I would be happy to > review your next submissiosn to upstream, before you send them. 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. I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't use Hurd, I don't have a good understanding of what the problem is or how the patch(es) solve it. regards Andrew signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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 PATH_MAX? 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? (https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-users) There's also https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcp-hackers signature.asc Description: Digital signature
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 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. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
