[pkg-dhcp-devel] Bug#616290: [Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]
svante.signell at telia.com
Fri Dec 16 13:44:05 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:15 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Svante Signell writes ("[Fwd: [ISC-Bugs #25979] What happened to the dhcp patch in ISC-Bugs #24697 (Debian Bug #616290)?]"):
> > Dear Debian/Hurd, GNU/Hurd and Debian-devel people. This arrived today.
> > Any ideas on how to proceed? Is it possible to create a Hurd-specific
> > fork of the latest ISC-DHCP release? DHCP is an essential package in the
> > Debian Installer.
> I went and read the Debian bug report. The difficulty seems to be
> with the patch "fix_ftbfs4hurd.dpatch". I have to say that on reading
> that patch I understood upstream's reluctance. I don't think it looks
> to me like a correct and appropriate fix for build portability
There are two things involved in that patch, the PATH_MAX issues in
dh_client.c and dhcpd.c, and the changes to lpf.c. In my first version,
I did split the relevant lpf.c parts into a Hurd-specific one called
lpf_get_hw_addr.c. Later Samuel Thibault changed that into lpf.c
directly, by defining a new macro USE_LPF_HWADDR, and use that. In case
having a Hurd-specific part of lpf.c is more easily accepted by
upstream, we can make these changes to the current patch.
> Unfortunately the upstream bug tracker is secret so we can't see any
> discussion there, but the initial message sent to dhcp-bugs at isc
> doesn't seem really to explain the thinking behind the patch.
That message was sent by the DM, and did not contain much more
information than the Debian bug report itself (and the patch).
> Where can I find the detailed explanation of why this patch is
> required and how it works to fix the problems ? At the moment I can't
> even seem to find an error message from an FTBFS log.
More information can be found at the debian-hurd and bug-hurd ML
More information about the pkg-dhcp-devel