Raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One reason I haven't added all of the EAP patches is that I'm not
> >completely happy with them all. If you are interested in having a
> >dialogue about them, please post patches and messages to the list.
>
> I agree. Only the good patches should be checked in
> and not all the *crap* that I write.
Another person as prickly as I am. Welcome aboard! :)
And to answer the implied question: Yes, there ARE a number of
patches which get rejected as being unnecessary, badly written,
inefficient, or incorrect.
My interest in the server is to see it *working*. So there will be
patches I reject, or rewrite.
e.g. The 'hmac.c' code you posted. It contained references to
'bzero' and 'bcopy', which are non-portable. I changed those 'memset'
and 'memcpy', which are ANSI standard, and portable.
> I can re-start the work on EAP and send messages to the list.
> If you can send in your comments, I am open to all your feedback
> to redesign/restructure/redo.
I added a few more changes last night. The server now generates and
authenticates the Message-Authenticator attribute. Note again that I
did *not* apply your patch verbatim. I re-wrote it to fit more with
the current working of the server.
Some patches posted here work, but change the wrong area of code. I
wish to be sure that the code is simple, standard, *and* working.
I can't promise that I won't ever edit or reject your patches, but I
*can* promise that if you send a series of small patches with
comments/explanations, that I will respond, and apply many of them.
Alan DeKok.
-
List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html
