bug-inetutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bug-inetutils] [SCM] GNU Inetutils branch, master, updated. inetut


From: Mats Erik Andersson
Subject: Re: [bug-inetutils] [SCM] GNU Inetutils branch, master, updated. inetutils-1_9-3-g01dd21c
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 03:12:24 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

måndag den  2 januari 2012 klockan 20:46 skrev Alfred M. Szmidt detta:
> I need to roll a new release, since gnulib installs
> git-merge-changelog in bindir.  Mats, do you think these two changes
> will break something?  Otherwise, I'll roll one tomorrow.
> 
>    commit 01dd21c666c3fdaf16b1c9d01ac9ae6c03f0297b
>    Author: Mats Erik Andersson <address@hidden>
>    Date:   Tue Jan 3 00:45:44 2012 +0100
> 
>        ftpd: Internal address family independence.
> 
>    commit ed4ff5db997369d08959501dbad771ba08dbe795
>    Author: Mats Erik Andersson <address@hidden>
>    Date:   Mon Jan 2 22:29:14 2012 +0100
> 
>        ftpd: First step for address independence.

They have been built against GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
and GNU/OpenSolaris. All four pass the test "test/ftp-localhost.sh".
And at both stages!

My next patch set would have activated "EPSV/IPv4", "EPSV af", and "EPRT".
They are all part of code tested successfully for IPv4 and IPv6
on OpenBSD. Therefore I do not think the pushed patches are prone
to break anything, they just add some limited IPv6 support without
reaching the full RFC standard, and without implementing the supplementary
IPv4 commands that were introduced in the same RFC texts.

Should you prefer to remove my two patches before rolling the release,
I will not raise any objections. Better safe than sorry, I can simply
recalculate and push them later.

Best regards,
  Mats



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]