And let's all just hope that a week or two of testing is enough when
jumping a major piece of software forward several years in its
independent evolution.
The import of 4.2.8p2 several months ago resulted in complete failure of
timekeeping on all my arm systems. Just last week I tracked it down to
a kernel bug (which I haven't committed the fix for yet). While the bug
has been in the kernel for years, it tooks a small change in ntpd
behavior to trigger it.
Granted it's an odd corner-case problem that won't affect most users
because they just use the stock ntp.conf file (and it only affects
systems that have a large time step due to no battery-backed clock).
But it took me weeks to find enough time to track down the cause of the
problem.
I wonder how many other such things could be lurking in 4.2.8, waiting
to be triggered by other peoples' non-stock configurations? We've
already had one report for 4.2.8p3 of someone's GPS refclock not working
after the update.
-- Ian
On Sun, 2015-07-12 at 18:49 +0900, Tomoaki AOKI wrote:> Wow! Thanks for your time and quick response.
> I'm looking forward to seeing it MFCed. :-)
>
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:56:26 +0000
> Xin LI <delphij at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've spent some time on the MFC, the testing would still take some
time
> > (likely a day or two) and once that's finished I'll ask re@
for approval.
> > On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:44 PM Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon at
dec.sakura.ne.jp>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > As I already mentioned in another post, head has 4.2.8 p3
in-tree.
> > >
> > > So the answer should be MFC before creation of releng/10.2 is
planned
> > > or not.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:04:43 +1000
> > > Peter Jeremy <peter at rulingia.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2015-Jul-11 23:22:56 -0400, Chris Nehren <
> > > cnehren+freebsd-stable at pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 09:58:11 +1000, John Marshall
wrote:
> > > > >> It's me again with my annual NTP whinge.
> > > > >
> > > > >The answer to the perennial "will release $foo ship
with old / insecure
> > > > >/ otherwise deficient $bar?" is still "install
$bar from ports".
> > > >
> > > > That's a non-answer. It just changes the question to
"why bother to
> > > > include $bar in base when I need to install the port
anyway".
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Jeremy
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tomoaki AOKI junchoon at dec.sakura.ne.jp
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe
at freebsd.org"
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at
freebsd.org"
> >
>
>