Upcoming 2.4.6 release

Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Paul Mackerras]

I have just pushed a dozen commits to the ppp.git repository at
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git.  I'd like to do a 2.4.6 release
soon.  So if anyone has patches pending, now is the time to send
them, and if people could test what's there that would be good.

Paul.

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[James Carlson]

On 6/2/2012 1:30 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:00:37PM +0200, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> I have just pushed a dozen commits to the ppp.git repository at
>> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git.  I'd like to do a 2.4.6 release
>> soon.  So if anyone has patches pending, now is the time to send
>> them, and if people could test what's there that would be good.
> I recently moved the PPtP plugin from accel-pptp[1] into pppd and tested it with
> OpenWrt in the past month. Seems to work great and would obsolete pptpd.
> 

Seems like a good step forward.  One question, though: if it's a pppd
plug-in, why does it have its own independent debug/error logging
infrastructure?

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj@workingcode.com>

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Daniel Golle]

On 03/06/12 20:35, James Carlson wrote:
> On 6/2/2012 1:30 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:00:37PM +0200, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>>> I have just pushed a dozen commits to the ppp.git repository at
>>> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git.  I'd like to do a 2.4.6 release
>>> soon.  So if anyone has patches pending, now is the time to send
>>> them, and if people could test what's there that would be good.
>> I recently moved the PPtP plugin from accel-pptp[1] into pppd and tested it with
>> OpenWrt in the past month. Seems to work great and would obsolete pptpd.
>>
> 
> Seems like a good step forward.  One question, though: if it's a pppd
> plug-in, why does it have its own independent debug/error logging
> infrastructure?
> 
It generally looks like the management-connection handling of PPtPd was
refactored and reused in the PPtP plugin. Probably this is why it brings all
that redundant piece of logging infrastructure with it.
However, as the logging calls are handled through macros in util.h it's quite
easy to just use sed to replace them and use the macros from pppd.h instead.
I'll see if more decent critique comes up and then do all that I believe makes
sense and then re-submit the patch.

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[James Cameron]

On 6/2/2012 1:30 PM, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:00:37PM +0200, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > I have just pushed a dozen commits to the ppp.git repository at
> > git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git.  I'd like to do a 2.4.6 release
> > soon.  So if anyone has patches pending, now is the time to send
> > them, and if people could test what's there that would be good.
>
> I recently moved the PPtP plugin from accel-pptp[1] into pppd and
> tested it with OpenWrt in the past month. Seems to work great and
> would obsolete pptpd.

Looking forward to that.  pptpd in user-space has always felt wrong.

Hope someone someday does pptp too?

-- 
James Cameron
(pptp and pptpd maintainer)
http://quozl.linux.org.au/

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[James Carlson]

Daniel Golle wrote:
> This is the pptp plugin for pppd, taken from accel-pptp.sf.net.
> 
> Since the previous post I removed the logging macros from util.h so and fixed
> things so that the plugin now uses the pppd.h supplied logging functions.
> Probably some more pruning makes sense here and there, I'm open for suggestions.

Much improved on logging; thanks!

Yes, it does look like some light clean-up work could still be done
(particularly with the man page), but I think it's a good improvement as
it stands.

Paul?

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj@workingcode.com>

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Daniel Golle]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone,

I guess you are aware of
https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/ppp/patches

Just as I haven't encountered any of them on git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git

Most of them make sense and apply cleanly, few are OpenWrt-specific.

I'd suggest importing:
100-debian_ip-ip_option.patch
101-debian_close_dev_ppp.patch
103-debian_fix_link_pidfile.patch
105-debian_demand.patch
106-debian_stripMSdomain.patch
107-debian_pppatm_cleanup.patch
110-debian_defaultroute.patch
120-debian_ipv6_updown_option.patch
202-no_strip.patch
203-opt_flags.patch
204-radius_config.patch
205-no_exponential_timeout.patch
206-compensate_time_change.patch
207-lcp_mtu_max.patch
208-fix_status_code.patch
300-filter-pcap-includes-lib.patch
310-precompile_filter.patch
320-custom_iface_names.patch
330-retain_foreign_default_routes.patch
340-populate_default_gateway.patch
400-simplify_kernel_checks.patch
404-remove_obsolete_protocol_names.patch
430-pppol2tpv3-struct.patch


Cheers

Daniel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=qcTl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 05, Daniel Golle <dgolle@allnet.de> wrote:

> I guess you are aware of
> https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/ppp/patches

Debian too has many patches which have been tested for many years and
should be merged:

http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/ppp/2.4.5-5.1

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Charlie Brady]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Marco d'Itri wrote:

> On Jun 05, Daniel Golle <dgolle@allnet.de> wrote:
> 
> > I guess you are aware of
> > https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/ppp/patches

I would guess not.

> Debian too has many patches which have been tested for many years and
> should be merged:
> 
> http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/ppp/2.4.5-5.1

And both project should take some time to send patches upstream some 
time...

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Marco d'Itri]

On Jun 06, Charlie Brady <charlieb-linux-ppp@budge.apana.org.au> wrote:

> And both project should take some time to send patches upstream some 
> time...
Long ago I tried, at least twice.

-- 
ciao,
Marco

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Paul Mackerras]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 08:02:39PM +0300, Daniel Golle wrote:

> I guess you are aware of
> https://dev.openwrt.org/browser/trunk/package/ppp/patches
> 
> Just as I haven't encountered any of them on git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/ppp.git
> 
> Most of them make sense and apply cleanly, few are OpenWrt-specific.
> 
> I'd suggest importing:

The problem with distro patches like this is that they very often
don't have any authorship information, sign-off or a decent patch
description.  Unless a patch is really trivial I need to know who the
author is and that the author gives permission for me to include it.
Without a decent patch description I have to reverse-engineer why
the changes are being made, which is often not at all obvious.  For
example, what's the use case for 100-debian_ip-ip_option.patch?
What are the circumstances where 101-debian_close_dev_ppp.patch would
find a ppp_fd already open?  And so on.

I see that several of the patches on that page have a sign-off from
Philip Prindeville, so presumably he wrote them and can give me a nod
to include them.  Philip?

Paul.

Re: Upcoming 2.4.6 release

[Paul Mackerras]

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 12:11:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jun 06, Charlie Brady <charlieb-linux-ppp@budge.apana.org.au> wrote:
> 
> > And both project should take some time to send patches upstream some 
> > time...
> Long ago I tried, at least twice.

Well, let's try again.  But I do need to know who wrote each patch and
why we want it.  If the patches were done in response to bug reports
then you may have that information in a bug tracking system.

Paul.