Re: [Linux-igd-devel] [linux-igd] Release goals and roadmap...

[<juh...@tk...>]

Hi,

I'm back and I think automake/autotools support is very welcome. I  
had some small scripts together earlier on but they were in no way  
finished (didn't install the library in right place) and didn't get  
committed. So I would be all for some better build system but other  
opinions are of course still welcome. And I think Daniel has a good  
list of things to do so far after the 0.95 gets out.

Just my two euro cents.


Juho


On 8.8.2006, at 19:43, Rosfran Borges wrote:
>
>    It's nice your initiative, Blueman. Among these items you noted,  
> there are another things we can priorize too, like the 'automake/ 
> autotools' support on compilation and library dependencies. I can  
> do this, if everybody agree with it: so we can use it to  
> generate .deb packages.
>
> []'s
> Rosfran Borges
>
> On 8/7/06, Daniel J Blueman <dan...@gm...> wrote: Hi guys,
>
> I sent this message [1] to the linux-igd devel list, but had not
> response yet. If no-one objects, I'll cut a 0.95 release over the next
> few days, then move on to the next steps below.
>
> Feedback is welcome - please CC lin...@li...,
> so everyone gets the info (eventually).
>
> Thanks,
>   Daniel
>
> --- [1]
>
> I've been testing and committing some updates to the project lately
> and wanted to discuss release plans.
>
> So far, there are a few items I'm aware of:
>
> 1. connection data counters do not work (bug)
> 2. use of unbounded strings, unchecked calls, ip address strings and
> other potential security-related things - including memory (valgrind)
> bugs, which I've fixed most non-subtle ones already
> 3. outstanding patches
> 4. subversion migration (?)
>
> It would be good to do a 0.95 release, as-is. At least people can get
> something officially updated.
>
> Following this, I'd like to get some other security-related items
> tightened up and I have a patch half-cooked for item #1 - this should
> take a couple of weeks, then after a couple of weeks of code being
> tested to some degree, perhaps a grand 1.0 release?
>
> Following this, it would be great to get Nektarios's excellent patches
> in and iron out any issues; I've seen at least one potential one,
> which I'll raise separately - (I like the "harmonizing" concept I
> think Juho mentioned) and release version 1.2/1.5/2.0 depending on how
> significant our renewed energy and redefined image is.
>
> The route to 1.0 needn't take as long this I mention, but it's good to
> not have to rush. I was looking at subversion migration in the future,
> since CVS is a pain without setting up the SSH keys correctly and if
> you don't have full net access.
>
> What do you guys think?
> --
> Daniel J Blueman
>