Re: Weird bugs

[Mark Burgess]

Thanks, I shall look into this.
M

On Wed, 2005-10-05 at 17:26 -0400, Jason Kim wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 October 2005 15:17, Mark Burgess wrote:
> > Jason, I'm not sure if you have told us what version you are using. Is
> > it the latest one? 
> I've confirmed these bugs on 2.1.15, planning on testing 2.1.16 this week. 
> However you've said that there were no major changes, so I assumed that if 
> any of what I was saying rang a bell you'd point it out. If these happen to 
> disappear with the new version, I will happily stop bugging you :-)
> 
> > I am a bit sceptical about the need for such large
> > patches when hundred of people seem to be getting on fine.
> Again, I realize that the things I'm seeing are relatively minor, but they 
> are 
> still things that are broken and could be fixed. Hundreds of people may be 
> fine with extraneous log files and malformed email subject lines (personally 
> I could really care less), but I happen to have very picky eyes on this 
> project, and saying "oh, just ignore that" doesn't really cut it. However I 
> am in a position to try to improve things, so I'm offering my help.
> 
> > Your message is hard to read, and is full of opinions rather than clear
> > facts. If there is a problem I would like to help, but I tend to ignore
> > long emails without clear content for lack of time. Best strategy to
> > prompt me into action is short and clear.
> I can understand and appreciate this, that's why I keep trying :-) I'll try 
> to 
> summarize below:
> 
> * When cfexecd sends email, the from address can be (in some circumstances) 
> set differently in the smtp 'MAIL FROM:' and the 'From:' header set in the 
> message data. Is this behavior desired? If not, I offer to help fix it. If 
> so, there seem to be some oddities which I would like to clarify.
> 
> * There are extraneous cfengine.*.runlog files getting generated. I have 
> studied the code extensively, and have come to the conclusion that cfexecd 
> has some flaws in the way it resolves hostnames. Assuming you agree to this 
> conclusion, I can offer a possible resolution, including a patch if you do 
> not have the time to provide assistance. All I ask is some guidance in 
> understanding your original intent.
> 
> Those are the two issues at a very high level. I can provide detailed 
> instructions on replicating the problems and snippets of code where I believe 
> things to be in error, but in the interests of keeping things simple to pique 
> your interest I will leave it at that. Thanks for your time...
> -JayKim