v...@darkbeer.org said:
> Can you elaborate on this please? Are you talking about rebuilding each
> version.c for the respective tool it is meant for if a file for that tool
> changes?
Yes, If you are relinking ntpd, waf should recompile ntpd/version.c as part
of this batch. It doesn't need t
On 2016-03-29 12:25 -0700, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> It would be nice if waf was smart enough to recompile version at all the
> right times. It might miss some case. I mostly use a script that rm-s the
> build directory so I haven't had problems.
Can you elaborate on this please? Are you talking
The date string in the version printout is the date/time it was built, not
the date of the last change in git. That gives you a useful string if you
have a sequence of local edits that aren't committed yet. The git hash is
there if you want the git info.
You can find version.c in build/main/
Cool, thanks.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 10:44 AM Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
>> Mark Atwood :
>> > Chris, Hal, Eric, everyone else: what have you been hacking on, and what
>> > ntpsec codebase puzzles are you thinking about?
>>
>> Follopwing o
Hi,
I have a strange issue. My ntp{d,q} versions seem wrong.
I do a git pull
root@ntpmon:~/ntpsec# git branch
* master
root@ntpmon:~/ntpsec# git describe
NTPsec_0_9_2-35-g9f732ba
root@ntpmon:~/ntpsec# git log | head
commit 9f732bada3b40fe7676bb248d8905dddfe79b671
Author: Eric S. Raymond
Date
On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Mark Atwood :
> > Chris, Hal, Eric, everyone else: what have you been hacking on, and what
> > ntpsec codebase puzzles are you thinking about?
>
> Follopwing our IRC conversation about I'm now switched about 75% to
> forward-porting fixes
On 2016-03-28 15:23 +, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Good morning, everybody.
>
> I am on my way to the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit, where I will be,
> among other things, representing NTPsec.
Sounds great! Please keep us posted! :)
> Tomorrow morning will be another metronomic 0.9.* vers
Hal Murray :
> Would you please take a look at any ntpq changes?
>
> I think there has been a lot of work on it since the fork trying to fix the
> ^C bug. If you are going to grab those changes, I'll procrastinate on fixing
> it.
There has been a fix, but I remember yoyu saying you thought it
There is work in progress in the IETF on authenticated NTP. As far as I can
tell, getting off the ground is a really hard problem. All the classical
crypto work uses time to decide if the info you have is still valid and
prevent replay attacks and things like that.
I think we should have a w
