Point release of NTPSec

[Eric S. Raymond]

Hal Murray <hmurray at megapathdsl.net>:
> 
> esr at thyrsus.com said:
> > But doing the right thing is better than a switch.  And the test is a cost
> > that only needs to be paid once. 
> 
> I think your no-switch approach is good for things where the choice is A or B, 
> like picking the right baud rate.
> 
> But this isn't one of those cases.  This is an X doesn't work.  Did the user 
> intend that or is something broken?  In the obscure case where IPv6 is not 
> enabled on the system, I'm happy to add a "-4" to ntp.conf to tell the system 
> I expect that.

*blink* Then why did you say you'd leave this one to me as though you were mostly
indifferent to the alternatives?

> I've got the code working, but it also ignores lots of other cases where I 
> want it to crash.  I should be able to fix that, just more code and I need to 
> get the internal interface right.
> 
> I also disagree with your only need to test once.  If we only need to test 
> once, why are we maintaining a complicated test package?  I agree that this 
> sort of code is not likely to break due to system upgrades so the need for 
> continual testing is not high.  On the other hand, it would be nice to test it 
> on all OSes.

We maintain a complicared test package because we have a lot of things to
verify that are much less stable than the UDP API. :-)

I was sloppy.  I should have said once per platform.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>