Sorry for the top-post.
+1 from me.
Running this on 2 leaves now and did not find a problem.
The thing you found with the off-by-one is for ssl and we are not using
this yet because all servers are on 2.2 right now.
.nl and .se server in our network are now running this port on amd64 and
we have no trouble.
Our tests with a shadow net show that server-server ssl is working
correctly and next week we will replace our hubs with this port and
force our leaves to use 3.0.X as well for the SSL between the server
links.
Good job Simon.
Thanks for all the work and looking at my patches.
On 23:42, Sat 07 Feb 09, Simon Bertrang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 02:22:42PM +0100, Simon Bertrang wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:09:48PM +0100, Michiel van Baak wrote:
> > > On 09:25, Wed 04 Feb 09, Simon Bertrang wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:37PM +0100, Michiel van Baak wrote:
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am working on a port of the ircd-ratbox.
> > > > > Some patches will be the same as the recently imported hybrid port,
> > > > > some
> > > > > will be local.
> > > > >
> > > > > If I get feedback from the hubs and nodes in our network that run
> > > > > ratbox, is there any change for it to be imported as well ?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > As i've been playing with it already i have a prelimary port for it.
> > > > See the attached tarball for my attempt and feel free to merge our
> > > > efforts. I don't mind maintainership, so do whatever is required to
> > > > make it fit your taste and needs and let me know how it goes. I'll
> > > > surely test, provide feedback and eventually import it.
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the reply.
> > > I see you took ratbox 3.0 while my work (incomplete at the moment) is on
> > > the 2.2.8 version.
> > > I bet it's best for me to upgrade to 3.0 and go with that eh?
> > >
> >
> > Specifically i'm after the SSL improvements in 3.x and besides that, the
> > 2.x branch will surely be discontinued somewhen in the future (i have no
> > idea when though... just theoretically).
> > Please try 3.x where it's probably also easier to get fixes in.
> >
> > If you notice any issues we can surely try to solve them. In fact, i've
> > already talked to the developer who seems pretty active.
> >
>
> After some feedback from Michiel van Baak and a lot of adjustments and
> finetuning, here's an updated tarball:
> - changed version to 3.0.1
> - fixed an off-by-one in ssl_process_zipstats (thanks to Jilles
> Tjoelker and Aaron Sethman)
> - changed the module path to ${PREFIX}/lib/...
> - added --with-rundir option to configure(.ac) for a better pidfile
> location (/var/run/ircd-ratbox instead of /etc/ircd-ratbox)
> - clean up the makefile
> - patched and ${SUBST_CMD}ed the example configs for an easier
> configuration (the builtin paths were relative to /usr/local)
> - simplified the post-install target
> - removed some unnecessary patches
> - adjusted configure.ac so it works with our auto*-tools
> - wrote a better pkg/DESCR
> - added a pkg/MESSAGE inspired by ircd-hybrid
> - put another @conflict marker into pkg/PLIST to prevent conflicts with
> ircd-hybrid
> - added @newgroup, @newuser and a few @mode, @owner and @group markers
> for stricter file and directory permissions
> - @comment'ed a few unrequired static libs
>
> I've tested on amd64, i386 and sparc64 and i'd like to get some other
> arches tested too... anyone?
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> P.S.: I'm also preparing a port of ratbox-services... maybe that gives
> some additional motivation to test ;-)
--
Michiel van Baak
[email protected]
http://michiel.vanbaak.eu
GnuPG key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x71C946BD
"Why is it drug addicts and computer aficionados are both called users?"
