On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
| You caught me in the middle of a big update.
Do let us know when the dust settles so that we can resume testing.
I just pushed the last chunk of updates.
you might still see some false positives with strongswan. I have a set
of updates pending
| From: Paul Wouters
| You caught me in the middle of a big update.
Do let us know when the dust settles so that we can resume testing.
___
Swan-dev mailing list
Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Antony Antony wrote:
The problem was that the "ip xfrm pol" output had two issues:
1) pseudo random order of in/out/fwd entries in "ip xfrm pol" output
2) Spurious extra 0.0.0.0/0 socket options line.
this sounds like an iprovement.
Is the state order is important? Isn't
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 12:19:25PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
>
> > After a pause of a few months, I ran the test suite last night.
> > I tested HEAD, as of ce5d67b98214746e8e55a2a1c401343117dba1aa.
> >
> > A *lot* of tests seem to have failed. I
On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, D. Hugh Redelmeier wrote:
After a pause of a few months, I ran the test suite last night.
I tested HEAD, as of ce5d67b98214746e8e55a2a1c401343117dba1aa.
A *lot* of tests seem to have failed. I looked at a couple of failures
and got bored. They were just random changes in
After a pause of a few months, I ran the test suite last night.
I tested HEAD, as of ce5d67b98214746e8e55a2a1c401343117dba1aa.
A *lot* of tests seem to have failed. I looked at a couple of failures
and got bored. They were just random changes in XFRM logging and I had no
way of knowing if they
