Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:19:10 +0200 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de> To: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Cc: Xin LI <delphij@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Will 10.2 also ship with a very stale NTP? Message-ID: <55B23B4E.1080400@omnilan.de> In-Reply-To: <1436715703.1334.193.camel@freebsd.org> References: <20150710235810.GA76134@rwpc16.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> <20150712032256.GB19305@satori.lan> <20150712050443.GA22240@server.rulingia.com> <20150712154416.b9f3713893fe28bfab1dd4d7@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <CAGMYy3vKEUCD=Ssxt%2B2Vny4eQ7CNQHTxNKncyQnRk5dPQU6ZtA@mail.gmail.com> <20150712184910.2d8d5f085ae659d5b9a2aba0@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <1436715703.1334.193.camel@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4A5B35E17751FBEE975CD82C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Bez=FCglich Ian Lepore's Nachricht vom 12.07.2015 17:41 (localtime): > 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. =85 > 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 =85 I'd like to report one, most likely an upstream problem: 'restrict' definitions in ntp.conf(5) no longer work with unqualified DNS= names. A line like "restrict time1 nomodify nopeer noquery notrap" results in: ntpd[1913]: line 7 column 7 syntax error, unexpected T_Time1 ntpd[1913]: syntax error in /etc/ntp.conf line 7, column 7 I've always been using unqualified hostnames with 'restrict', and since d= efining 'server' with unqualified hostname still works, this seems to be = a significant bug to me. People are forced to change 'restrict' definitio= ns, but not to also change other unqualified definitions, which potential= ly leads to misconfigurations, since intentionally matching definitions c= an now differ easily. Has anybody already noticed this problem? And any idea if upstream is awa= re? > 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@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've spent some time on the MFC, the testing would still take some ti= me >>> (likely a day or two) and once that's finished I'll ask re@ for appro= val. Thanks, -Harry --------------enig4A5B35E17751FBEE975CD82C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAlWyO04ACgkQLDqVQ9VXb8hsWgCgmN3OExFRm3VWixZXna9oA40x Px0An09FhqyzIFvgiQPmc1ZA7rctc+Jh =BMgA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4A5B35E17751FBEE975CD82C--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?55B23B4E.1080400>