Difference between revisions of "Notes20100419"

 With one exception, I believe the 5.4.3 and 5.2.6
 releases are ready to go out.   That exception is,
 of course, the status of the Windows builds.

 There are two issues here:
   a) Notification Log MIB
   b) IPv6 support

 As it stands at the moment, the code (for both lines)
 builds OK using both Visual Studio (run interactively)
 and using 'build.bat'.  However previous versions of the
 5.4.x agent & trapd included support for the Notification
 Log MIB when built with Visual Studio, and this is no
 longer active.

 I believe there are three options here:
   i)   Accept the current code
          (build.bat works, MSVC build loses functionality)
   ii)  Reactivate the NLog-MIB support
          (MSVC works as before, build.bat fails)
   iii) Add support to build.bat framework to include NLog

 As regards IPv6 support, the current status is (I believe)
 that MSVC builds OK, but (definitely) build.bat fails when
 IPv6 support is enabled.  The patch I proposed is apparently
 not suitable - Bart is looking to come up with a better version.

 There are two options here:
    I)   Accept the current code
           (and document that build.bat does not support IPv6)
    II)  Use whatever fix Bart comes up with.

This recent flurry of activity has brought to light a number
of problems with the project - in particular knowing what has
or hasn't been tested.
  A few things for you to think about at the meeting:
 
 - Do we need an equivalent of "make test" for Windows?
   Currently, I'm just building the code, and checking that
   this succeeds.  A test suite would help detect run-time
   problems of the type Bart has been reporting.

 - Currently, we rely on people telling us about problems with
   the pre- and rc- builds.  If we hear nothing, then we assume
   things are OK.
      Should we be asking for explicit success reports as well?

 - I seem to remember discussion of "make test" offering to
   send a build report to the project.  I'm increasingly of
   the opinion that this is probably a good idea.
       But what about Windows?  (see above)

 We recently had a query about whether the 5.4.2 Windows binaries
 included SSL support or not.   Comparing this release with previous
 versions showed one set of binaries (?without) rather than two
 (both with/without).   But I realised that I didn't know how to
 generate the missing set (or even whether I could)

 Again, this raises a number of issues: 

   - Should we continue to offer two sets of Windows binaries?

   - How do users know what functionality is/isn't supported
     in any given binary distribution?  Should these packages
     include a summary of the configuration options used?
       (Not just Windows - this applies to other O/S as well)

   - Who among the core team is able/responsible for creating
     binaries?  (Again, various systems, not just Windows).
       I suspect it might be useful to have proper Build
     Instructions for each of the supported architecture