Thread: [Ipsec-tools-users] Re: [Ipsec-tools-devel] time for 0.6rc2
Brought to you by:
mit_warlord,
netbsd
From: <uri...@op...> - 2005-06-23 00:12:08
|
> We have very few feedbacks for 0.6rc1. It works for me, PSK and certs auth. > I added Ludo Stellingwerff's NAT-T fix. Great! > Given that SHA2 support could trigger build problems > and that nobody gave me any feedback about it in > HEAD, I think it's better not pull it up in 0.6. Wht wait? It seems to work on my computers. I'm asking to include it. Especially since you'd have to do it eventually. |
From: <uri...@op...> - 2005-06-23 16:57:16
|
> > > Given that SHA2 support could trigger build problems > > > and that nobody gave me any feedback about it in > > > HEAD, I think it's better not pull it up in 0.6. > > > > Wht wait? It seems to work on my computers. I'm asking to > include it. > > Especially since you'd have to do it eventually. > > I added it in HEAD, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to do a feature > addition at release candidate stage. Someone might discover after the > release that this breaks the build on a given setup because a > define is > not defined as we expect 1. I definitely think it won't break the build. After all, don't we build it? My kernel is un-hacked (AFAIK :-). 2. How can we possibly expect to get it ever tested if it doesn't get included even into RC?! So yes I am sure it's a good idea to add this feature. |
From: <ma...@ne...> - 2005-06-23 22:48:27
|
<uri...@op...> wrote: > 1. I definitely think it won't break the build. After all, don't we build > it? My kernel is un-hacked (AFAIK :-). I fear undefined macros... > 2. How can we possibly expect to get it ever tested if it doesn't get > included even into RC?! It would be in next release. Other opinions? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus Le cahier de l'admin BSD 2eme ed. est dans toutes les bonnes librairies http://www.eyrolles.com/Informatique/Livre/9782212114638/livre-bsd.php ma...@ne... |
From: <uri...@op...> - 2005-06-24 11:45:22
|
> > 1. I definitely think it won't break the build. After all, don't > we build > > it? My kernel is un-hacked (AFAIK :-). > > I fear undefined macros... In where? As I said, my kernel is standard 2.6.11 (from Fedora FC3) and OpenSSL is unhacked 0.9.7g - whatever's defined there, is standard. > > 2. How can we possibly expect to get it ever tested if it > doesn't get > > included even into RC?! > > It would be in next release. > > Other opinions? You know mine. |
From: <ma...@ne...> - 2005-06-23 04:48:32
|
<uri...@op...> wrote: > > Given that SHA2 support could trigger build problems > > and that nobody gave me any feedback about it in > > HEAD, I think it's better not pull it up in 0.6. > > Wht wait? It seems to work on my computers. I'm asking to include it. > Especially since you'd have to do it eventually. I added it in HEAD, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to do a feature addition at release candidate stage. Someone might discover after the release that this breaks the build on a given setup because a define is not defined as we expect -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz ma...@ne... |