[Dnsmasq-discuss] Support for DHCP option 125

[richardvoigt at gmail.com]

On 9/18/07, ~ Kunal Sharma ~ <koolkunal at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, this is a pretty stable system and changing something as
> important as dnsmasq is fraught
> with risks. Apart from that, the management hasn't allocated enough time
> for me to be able to upgrade
> to the latest version and test all the related functionalities.
>
> I do hope, however, that the version I'm using does not have critical bugs
> or restrictions.



I was referring more to the fact that fully testing your changes to dnsmasq
would require the same set of testing as an upgrade.

I work at a NASA contractor, and while our software (running in Mission
Control) doesn't go through the process that the flight software does,
there's still a lot of testing involved and a lot of people involved with
every release.  As a result, when we have a compelling need for a new
release and the testing and deployment costs associated, we include all the
fixes we know about at the same time.

Maybe you've convinced your management that adding one feature requires less
testing than an upgrade -- I'm a little skeptical considering the upgrade
has already been deployed tens of thousands of times.


Thanks,
> Kunal
>
> On 9/18/07, richardvoigt at gmail.com <richardvoigt at gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9/17/07, ~ Kunal Sharma ~ <koolkunal at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm using 2.23, so its pretty old but I can't change it now for
> > > certain reasons !
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Kunal
> >
> >
> > May I inquire as to the rationale that allows modifications to dnsmasq
> > but not upgrade to the latest version?
> >
> >
> >  On 9/14/07, Simon Kelley <simon at thekelleys.org.uk > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ~ Kunal Sharma ~ wrote:
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > Many thanks for replying. Basically, I'm trying to add support for
> > > > the
> > > > > DHCP requirements that are needed for DSL Forum's TR-111 standard,
> > > > > in my gateway device.
> > > > >
> > > > >  >The existing support for non-vendor-identifying encapsulated
> > > > options is
> > > > >  >in two places. The data gets laid out in the packet in the
> > > > second half
> > > > >  >of do_options() in src/rfc2131.c.
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope you're talking about do_opt() or do_req_options() because I
> > > > don't
> > > > > find do_options() in the code.
> > > >
> > > > I'm talking about do_options(). It sounds like you have an older
> > > > release. The current release is 2.40. Unless you have very good
> > > > reasons
> > > > why not, it's best to work from that.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And yes, I'm aware of GNU GPL. I just meant to make sure the
> > > > author
> > > > > does not place any proprietary licence. So. I'll definitely share
> > > > the source
> > > > > once I'm done with this.
> > > >
> > > > GPL v2 for all current releases. It's possible that future releases
> > > > will
> > > > be GPL v3, see current posts in this groups.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Simon.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks again,
> > > > > Kunal
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Dnsmasq-discuss mailing list
> > > Dnsmasq-discuss at lists.thekelleys.org.uk
> > > http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dnsmasq-discuss
> > >
> > >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.thekelleys.org.uk/pipermail/dnsmasq-discuss/attachments/20070921/ef988ed0/attachment.htm