Re: [PATCH] dnsmasq: 2.76test10 with latest patches (001-004)

[Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2114 bytes --]

Hi,

it is indeed a question of testing.

We intend to release it soon, but unfortunately there is only little
man power to work on an other architecture. So contribution is
appreciated.

Best,
-Michael

On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 14:06 -0500, Kienker, Fred wrote:
> Is there any chance the x86_64 version will ever be released? If it
> is a 
> question of testing, I will volunteer to test it.
> 
> Best regards,
> Fred Kienker
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Tremer [mailto:michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 6:49 PM
> To: Paul Simmons; development(a)lists.ipfire.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] dnsmasq: 2.76test10 with latest patches (001-
> 004)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 15:39 -0600, Paul Simmons wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-02-29 at 20:22 +0100, Matthias Fischer wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 28.02.2016 21:19, Michael Tremer wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > I merged this patch and the one after.
> > > > 
> > > > Please give this version a good test as it is a pre-release 
> > > > version.
> > > Its running here.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > You can maintain a branch where you integrate all new changes,
> > > > but 
> 
> > > > I think it is not required to send every single one to the
> > > > mailing 
> 
> > > > list.
> > > > It creates a bit of noise and I think that unfortunately nobody
> > > > is 
> 
> > > > testing every single one any ways. Which is sad.
> > > Yep. ;-)
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Can we have maybe one aggregated patch after every release of
> > > > a 
> > > > Core Update? So we always have the latest version of dnsmasq
> > > > in 
> > > > the updates?
> > > I'll do that. If not otherwise wanted, I'll send the current - 
> > > patched - version after every Core Update.
> > > 
> > > Best,
> > > Matthias
> > 
> > @list:
> > 
> > I hope to have an opportunity to test RealSoonNow via an alternate 
> > boot scheme on current hardware.
> > 
> > Do you want me to test the i586 or the x86_64?
> 
> Ideally both :) But as we do not release the 64 bit builds at the 
> moment, i586 is preferred.
> 
> Best,
> -Michael
> 
> > 
> > Paul
> 

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]