[For Alan: I requested for FreeRADIUS 2.1.10 to replace 2.1.9 in the future Debian 6.0 release; the former came too late in our process to be accepted automatically.]
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:10:58PM +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 13:45 +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > People keep coming to the upstream freeradius-users mailing list asking for > > help with 2.0.4, and they increasingly get funny looks because it's a > > randomly ancient version, by the upstream people's standards. > > > > Right now we have 2.1.8 in squeeze, and I sense the same scenario will > > unfold, hence this request. This time at least we have roughly the last > > upstream point release before the cutoff date, but at the same time: > [...] > > So hopefully God won't kill any kittens if you just let this one through :) > > For a point release, that's not a small diff. :-/ I've tried reviewing > it and while some of it makes a fair amount of sense, I don't know the > product well enough to know whether the rest is fixing important bugs, > or just tinkering. > > This, from main/events.c, looks obviously wrong, however: > > + home->zombie_period_start.tv_sec = home->last_packet; > + home->zombie_period_start.tv_sec = USEC / 2; > > Presumably the second tv_sec should be tv_usec. Yeah, that sounds like it to me, too. That change came in this commit http://github.com/alandekok/freeradius-server/commit/f8bcc0fe which actually probably fixed a fatal crash (the assert call removed because "Don't check home->ev due to race conditions."), so that's still probably better than one randomized zombie period start (which can get reset and/or ignored soon enough anyway) which is why nobody else noticed. Alan, is this correct? -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org