Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 18:20:44 +0200 From: Josua Mayer <josua.mayer97@gmail.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routed && route6d removal proposal Message-ID: <eaee2d2f-aa90-cbb4-f3a2-315871c2681e@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <202006231444.05NEiaWV015841@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> References: <202006231444.05NEiaWV015841@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Makes sense to me, thanks for explaining! removal being a quite strong measure seems to need different reasons. The alternative is to invert the problem and ask why component xyz should stay in the base system - but I haven't heard anyone ask, so it seems just fine ;) Am 23.06.20 um 16:44 schrieb Rodney W. Grimes: >> \o everybody, >> >> this is just a little sidenote from an outsider: >> Isn't below remark a good reason to remove something from base? >> >> Like - would the bugfix have been available quicker if it had been in a >> port? Would the reporter have actually tested the fix in that case? > > It would of likely got even less attention as a port, > and that would not of really effected the fact that Eugene > moved on to another solution before the bug fix was completed, > which is a common situation, people need there stuff to work, > and they usually need it to work NOW, so when they hit a bug > they find a solution, often without even submitting a bug > report. > > The fact that the patch was not back ported to RELENG_4 > so that Eugene could of tested it is also a factor here, > and addressing those types of issues with a tool other > than base removal is probably a more productive path > forward. > > Further the fact the code has been in use for 7 major > versions since then makes use of that bug as a case for > removal rather a far reach, IMHO. > >> >> Am 22.06.20 um 22:33 schrieb Eugene Grosbein: >>> 23.06.2020 2:26, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: >>>>> I'm not talking about RIPv2 inherent deficiencies. >>>>> Our routed just glitches where quagga's ripd just works. >>>> >>>> And your PR# for reporting the bug is? >>> >>> Was. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51927 >>> Never had a chance to verify if it was really fixed in HEAD because it was not for RELENG_4, >>> so I moved to ripd. As you may remeber, RELENG_5 needed much time to become ready for production. > > I till use a 5.x version of FreeBSD: > > FreeBSD pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net 5.4-RELEASE-p8 FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p8 #1: Mon Jul 1 17:58:50 PDT 2019 root@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/PDXMXPIE i386 > 7:41AM up 158 days, 8:16, 1 user, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00 > > It actually ended up with some very stable code. 5.4p8 is the > end of line for much of my early personal work as the change to > CAM broke most of that work. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eaee2d2f-aa90-cbb4-f3a2-315871c2681e>