On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 21:55 +0200, Erich Titl wrote: > Hi David > > on 11.07.2011 21:15, davidMbrooke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am looking at updating dhcpd.lrp to add the option of IPv6 (i.e. > > DHCPv6 Server) support. Right now we build dhcp.lrp from ISC DHCP 2.0pl5 > > plus the -19.1 Debian patches, now more than 10 years old. > > That is real old, I ported 3.x a long time ago to Bering, because I felt > I needed it, the vanilla stuff was sufficient for me those days. > > > > > IPv6 support was added in the ISC DHCP 4.x versions, so we need to > > upgrade to at least 4.0 and ideally at least 4.1. The latest stable > > upstream version is currently 4.2. > > > > I have some questions about how closely we should try to follow what > > Debian does: > > - Debian "squeeze" ships with ISC DHCP 4.1.1-P1-15+squeeze2 (i.e. > > upstream 4.1.1-P1 with the -15+squeeze2 Debian patches. Should we > > continue to apply the Debian patches or revert to the "vanilla" upstream > > and remove the Debian changes? > > Again, what do these patches do? The way I understand the Debian way is, > that they add patches to their source tree before committing fixes to > upstream. While I understand that motive I'd rather stick to the vanilla > version unless there is a real need to follow the Debian way (there may > be other too though). > > > - Debian have changed the Package name to isc-dhcp-server, presumably > > to distinguish it from other software options for a DHCP server (and to > > distinguish it from -relay and -client). I was already thinking that > > adding an "isc" prefix was a good idea before I found that Debian had > > done it. However, if we do the same then "dhcpd.lrp" will become e.g. > > "isc-dhcp-server.lrp" which may confuse some users. > > Do we have a name collision somewhere? Is there another dhcpd or dhcp > package? Should we rather sack pump? > <dMb snip> > > cheers > > Erich
Hi Erich & kp, I was thinking that some users might miss the Debian "flavouring" but from kp's analysis that the changes are (mainly) back-ports of security patches that probably is not the case. My personal preference is for the latest, vanilla upstream versions, so we have 3 votes there. My focus right now is on DHCPv6, and server rather than client. There are certainly other DHCPv6 server package options: - Dibbler http://klub.com.pl/dhcpv6/ (which we have already as dibbler-server.lrp) - Wide-DHCPv6 http://sourceforge.net/projects/wide-dhcpv6/ My experience from testing Dibbler server and ISC DHCPv6 server is that DHCPv6 is immature technology and each implementation has strengths and weaknesses, so we probably want to offer multiple alternatives. Naming the package isc-dhcp-server emphasizes which DHCP code base is being used, but we can stick with dhcpd.lrp - at least for now. dMb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ AppSumo Presents a FREE Video for the SourceForge Community by Eric Ries, the creator of the Lean Startup Methodology on "Lean Startup Secrets Revealed." This video shows you how to validate your ideas, optimize your ideas and identify your business strategy. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appsumosfdev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
