On 19.11.2012 13:01, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 1:46 AM, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>> Aha. Very good example of why people should not post build errors
>> etc on
>> the users mailing list. I'm pretty much the only core developer
>> reading
>> this list and when I'm away or too busy for the list (like 10-30 Aug
>> 2012) reports get lost. I try to catch up but have to go through
>> them
>> quickly and there are 621 threads still to be read and dealt with in
>> my
>> mailbox right now.
>> /rant :-)
>>
>>
>> As for the build problem. Yes it is a minor flaw in Squid which is
>> highlighted by the recent stricter GCC versions. FYI; we have
>> managed to
>> get Coverity Scan running again on the Squid-3 code and this months
>> focus is on a deep polish fixing lots of little missing checks like
>> this. 3.3 and 3.2 will have this patch soonish:
>>
>> http://www.squid-cache.org/Versions/v3/3.HEAD/changesets/squid-3-12473.patch
>>
>>
>> Amos
> Hoo now I understood why and what happen with my post.
> I will check it later this month to make sure if this error is still
> exits.
> I have seen these posts about Coverity and it's very good to have
> more checks in place.
>
> What I was thinking is that if I do not get the errors in regular
> compilation it's not really an issue for installation and operation
> which most Centos users are care for.
Correct. Which is why that and many of the other minor issues are still
unfixed. It just means some potentially serious (but very rare) security
bugs are never visible so nobody worries about them. Making these things
visible is the goal to get a better assessment of whether they are as
rare as we think. Breaking the build (-Werror) is still enabled in order
to get problem reports from the very many environments which Squid is
required to run in which we are not even aware exist.
> And also Centos repos has only 3.1 RPM which makes Centos "the distro
> which dosnt upgrade squid".
That is on par with just about all the major distros unfortunately. I
suspect we are going to see a lot of them having to skip 3.2 releases
entirely.
>
> 621?? I hope it's not only from squid..
:-( it is.
> I just noticed that I got some timeout issue from my smtp relay
> server as it states you personal mail server was out of reach for the
> last couple days.(or it was the last error it got)
Hmm. I have IPv6-enabled mailserver some people cannot get to
periodically, due mostly to PMTUD breakage somewhere in the middle.
>
> I had a question for you about sockets stuff (related to TPORXY but
> it's for hobby so later next week.
>
> Thanks,
> Eliezer
Amos
Received on Mon Nov 19 2012 - 00:22:12 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Nov 19 2012 - 12:00:04 MST