About eight hours ago I removed some code that looked so stupid that I
now wonder if it was serving some purpose I don't understand.
As the change comment says,
For some odd reason the code for parsing server clauses created a secondary
FIFO of attribute/value nodes to be composed into fl
> Attempted port fix pushed. Please test.
Missing the _H on HAVE_SYS_CLOCKCTL
Fix pushed. More testing in the pipeline.
--
These are my opinions. I hate spam.
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hal Murray :
> Should we add HAVE_SYS_CLOCKCTL to waf, or just test for __NetBSD__?
I just did the former.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
___
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/de
matthew.sel...@twosigma.com said:
> NetBSD should be using the clockctl interface:
> http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?clockctl+4.i386+NetBSD-7.0
Thanks.
Eric, I should probably fix it since I have a test case.
Should we add HAVE_SYS_CLOCKCTL to waf, or just test for __NetBSD__?
--
These
Matthew Selsky :
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:20:54PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > Hal Murray :
> > > On NetBSD:
> > > 07-06T15:42:17 ntpd[4940]: root can't be dropped due to missing
> > > capabilities.
> >
> > So don't do that, then. Drop root, I mean. Without some equivalent of Linux
> >
On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 09:20:54PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Hal Murray :
> > On NetBSD:
> > 07-06T15:42:17 ntpd[4940]: root can't be dropped due to missing
> > capabilities.
>
> So don't do that, then. Drop root, I mean. Without some equivalent of Linux
> or Solaris fine-grained privilege
This is amusing. While auditing the recent changes to complete the
magic-address banishment, I discovered that the new refclock syntax
accidentally enabled a new feature.
It used to be that for the parse driver, the unit number was extracted
from the low two bits of the unit field (the last octet
Hal Murray :
>
> No rawstats or protostats either.
Yeah, that was a different problem. I reverted us to a good state and
am investigating this.
> Remember the saveconfigandquit stuff you ripped out? That would have caught
> this. (if we had used it)
>
> How are we going to test the parser?
