Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Stable releases v. development releases.

2014-04-17 Thread Tomas Hozza
- Original Message - > Thus far, dnsmasq has not maintained separate stable and development > branches. One reason for this is that there's been a pretty strong > policy of backwards-compatibility, so the penalty for upgrading to the > latest release is low: we've almost certainly not broke

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Stable releases v. development releases.

2014-04-17 Thread Brad Morgan
> I'm interested in opinions for and against the status-quo or a new stable/devel split. I'm not sure our opinion matters as much as what is easy for you, Simon. I also think that a split doesn't have to permanent going forward. If it makes sense for 2.69 bug fixes then make the split and as soon

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq's AdvRouterAddr On equivalent

2014-04-17 Thread Jorge Schrauwen
- Original Message - > From: "Simon Kelley" > To: dnsmasq-discuss@lists.thekelleys.org.uk > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 3:20:20 PM > Subject: Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq's AdvRouterAddr On equivalent > > On 15/04/14 23:31, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > > Hey All, > > > > I had a bit of

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Stable releases v. development releases.

2014-04-17 Thread Dave Taht
I think a lot of distro makers would be comforted by the idea of a stable branch and feel more comfortable in upgrading to the latest "stable" for distribution into their embedded products... ... regardless of your success in dealing the backward compatability issues. You could periodically obsole

[Dnsmasq-discuss] Stable releases v. development releases.

2014-04-17 Thread Simon Kelley
Thus far, dnsmasq has not maintained separate stable and development branches. One reason for this is that there's been a pretty strong policy of backwards-compatibility, so the penalty for upgrading to the latest release is low: we've almost certainly not broken your config, or changed behaviour.

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq's AdvRouterAddr On equivalent

2014-04-17 Thread Brian Haley
On 04/17/2014 09:20 AM, Simon Kelley wrote: > On 15/04/14 23:31, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: >> Hey All, >> >> I had a bit of trouble getting ra to work on OpenBSD but manually compiling >> 2.69 seems to have done the trick. (Yay!) >> I was porting over my old radvd.conf from linux and I have this op

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] Segfault in DNSSEC code

2014-04-17 Thread Simon Kelley
On 17/04/14 05:13, Wang Jian wrote: > Will this conflict with ipset fix (which related to DNSSEC) days ago? No, both should be applied. Cheers, Simon. > > 2014-04-17 5:24 GMT+08:00 Simon Kelley : >> On 15/04/14 22:39, Manish Singh wrote: >>> I've run across a segfault in the DNSSEC code when

Re: [Dnsmasq-discuss] dnsmasq's AdvRouterAddr On equivalent

2014-04-17 Thread Simon Kelley
On 15/04/14 23:31, Jorge Schrauwen wrote: > Hey All, > > I had a bit of trouble getting ra to work on OpenBSD but manually compiling > 2.69 seems to have done the trick. (Yay!) > I was porting over my old radvd.conf from linux and I have this option set > "AdvRouterAddr On". I cannot seem to f