On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Robert Wolf <[email protected]> wrote:
> we have agreed the probable functionality of the wide-dhcp6s in case there is
> no shared secret - the server should not open and listen on control port.

Great to hear that.

> For this, I have reported this on the upstream bug report page
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/wide-dhcpv6/bugs/36/
>
> and I have created some patches. Maybe it is good to apply both of the patches
> to be sure as most as possible, that there will be no way how to create 
> control
> port without shared secret.
>
>> Since the upstream isn't active since 2008, there're already a few
>> patches to fix various issues in debian:
>> - https://sources.debian.net/src/wide-dhcpv6/20080615-15/debian/patches/
>>
>> You can send the patch to both upstream and debian.
>
> *** I have attached the patches to this email, I am not sure if it will be
> visible in the bugreport. How could I submit a patch to debian package? I 
> would
> be great if you could apply these patches to this version and release it. But
> please, check the patches. I am only admin and no programmer, maybe there 
> could
> be something wrong. I have patched the original version, they you "dprintf()",
> but debian has changed to "debug_printf()" - this must be done. And the line
> numbers are according to original upstream source, not the patched debian
> version - is it OK?

Thanks for your patch!
Yes, it will remain in Debian's BTS forever.
I'll check your patch.

Please don't worry about the patch already existed in Debian.
I'll make it be able to apply before commit it into debian's patch queue.

>> Please also CC Michael if possible. I think it's better you two have
>> the consensus on the patch as well.
>
> *** We have discussed it on sf.net messaging, but his profile is now 404. I
> have commented his bug report, but we have agreed correct function of dhcp6s
> and the patch to correct this bug.

I'm sorry we seems lost his contacting.
404 means he deleted his profile on sf?

Thanks for your contribution, again!

Cheers,
Roger

Reply via email to