Issue #450: python install dir

I think we should sort it out for the release. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

Please see https://github.com/netniV/cacti-templates/tree/master/NTP On 27 Feb 2018 7:45 pm, "Sanjeev Gupta" wrote: Apologies. I checked an hour ago, and the guy who assured me that we were using 'native' SNMP has come back saying he setup the cacti script that talks over

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

On 03/01/2018 07:40 PM, Hal Murray via devel wrote: Mark Atwood said: ntpsnmpd should be it's own Debian package, please. It's useful to both NTPsec and to NTP Classic installations. Has anybody tried it with NTP Classic? Do we have a classic server running that we can test against?

Re: prep for 1.0.1

fallenpega...@gmail.com said: > If Hal isn't happy, I'm not happy. I'll hold the release until this gets > unsnarled. ..m It will take a day or two to fix the truncate case. Maybe tonight. It will take a week or so to add CMAC support. Waiting for that seems like a good idea. It will

Re: Is gitlab flaky?

The pipeline process is a bit flaky. I'm probably going to be able to meet with the GitLab CEO this coming week, and that's one of the points I'm going to bring up. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:21 PM Hal Murray via devel wrote: > When I push something, I normally get 2 messages

Re: 1.0.1 and ntpsnmpd

ntpsnmpd should be it's own Debian package, please. It's useful to both NTPsec and to NTP Classic installations. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 3:45 AM Sanjeev Gupta via devel wrote: > Apologies. > > I checked an hour ago, and the guy who assured me that we were using > 'native'

Re: prep for 1.0.1

If Hal isn't happy, I'm not happy. I'll hold the release until this gets unsnarled. ..m On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:42 PM Hal Murray via devel wrote: > [truncate long digests] > > Bletch. No, we don't. > > Except that others are already doing it, so I guess we should do it

Re: prep for 1.0.1

[truncate long digests] > Bletch. No, we don't. Except that others are already doing it, so I guess we should do it too. I'll add a warning to the code that reads in keys. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. ___ devel mailing list

Re: prep for 1.0.1

Hal Murray : > > devel@ntpsec.org said: > > I see no real blockers. We've got a bunch of little nits and documentation > > issues. I might try to push a fix for #446. > > There is no problem unless you setup your keys file to use an algorithm with > a big digest. >

Re: prep for 1.0.1

> I see no real blockers. We've got a bunch of little nits and documentation > issues. I might try to push a fix for #446. >From n...@ietf.org > Please note that latest versions of ntp truncate long digests in MACs to 160 > bits, so the authentication should work with any hash function