argparse vs getopt

2017-06-09 Thread Ian Bruene via devel
First: I am not considering performance here *whatsoever*, even if there were a meaningful difference, which I doubt, option parsing happens once during program startup, and ntpq doesn't need high speed anyway. Advantages of getopt getopt is simpler, it only needs argv + some definitions fe

Re: New feature: restrict address/cidr

2017-06-09 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Hal! On Fri, 09 Jun 2017 19:40:23 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > Nice. Thanks. > > > restrict 10.169.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 > > restrict 10.169.0.0/8 > > Slightly strange example. I'd expect 10.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 == > 10.0.0.0/8 or 10.169.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 == 10.169.0.0/16 Your expectation

Re: New feature: restrict address/cidr

2017-06-09 Thread Hal Murray via devel
Nice. Thanks. > restrict 10.169.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 > restrict 10.169.0.0/8 Slightly strange example. I'd expect 10.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 == 10.0.0.0/8 or 10.169.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 == 10.169.0.0/16 Should that generate an error message? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___

Re: [Git][NTPsec/ntpsec][master] Replace "uint" with "unsigned int"

2017-06-09 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Matthew! On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 21:31:51 -0400 Matthew Selsky via devel wrote: > I used "unsigned int" so that I would match the typedef that I was > replacing exactly. Ah, repeating the mistakes of the past, faithfully. > The codebase is not consistent about usage of "unsigned" vs "unsigned >

✘New feature: restrict address/cidr

2017-06-09 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo All! New feature. The restrict command in ntp.conf now supports CIDR notation. Instead of this: restrict 10.169.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 restrict 2001:470:e34c:2:: mask ::::ff00:: You can now do: restrict 10.169.0.0/8 restrict 2001:470:e34c:2::/72 Documented in '

Re: Fw: [Git][NTPsec/ntpsec][master] Replace "uint" with "unsigned int"

2017-06-09 Thread Matthew Selsky via devel
On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 11:43:20AM -0700, Gary E. Miller via devel wrote: > Yo Matt! > > > Commits: > > 0430e6a7 by Matt Selsky at 2017-06-08T23:42:39-04:00 > > Replace 'uint' with 'unsigned int' > > I always thought 'unsigned int' was overly verbose. How about > simply 'unsigned'? Hey Gary, I

Re: How much effort is it worth to polish unpeer?

2017-06-09 Thread Hal Murray via devel
e...@thyrsus.com said: > You're allowed to edit devel/TODO, Hal. :-). And in this case I think you > should, rather than have med edit it into something that might inadvertently > misrepresent what you're after. OK. I've started adding things to devel/TODO That doesn't solve the problem of mi

Fw: [Git][NTPsec/ntpsec][master] Replace "uint" with "unsigned int"

2017-06-09 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Matt! > Commits: > 0430e6a7 by Matt Selsky at 2017-06-08T23:42:39-04:00 > Replace 'uint' with 'unsigned int' I always thought 'unsigned int' was overly verbose. How about simply 'unsigned'? RGDS GARY --- Gary E. Miller R

Re: restrict: Ignore CIDR in restrict address

2017-06-09 Thread Gary E. Miller via devel
Yo Hal! On Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:12:03 -0700 Hal Murray wrote: > commit 1f40056d7d1190b1732ad3f4b6db8f15f24334b6 > One small step to accepting CIDR notation. > > That seems like a bug to me. It does something different from what > most users would expect. Really? Right now the documentatio

Re: USE_PACKET_TIMESTAMP

2017-06-09 Thread Eric S. Raymond via devel
Hal Murray via devel : > The recvmsg man page > SunOS 5.11 Last Revised 27 Feb 2006 > It has some info about SO_TIMESTAMP, but I don't see any hints about the CMSG > macros. They're a semi-separate issue. They're used to extract all kinds of out-of-band infirmation from the data block return