[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       libreswan-dev
Subject:    Re: [Swan-dev] are waiting for f28 or for big changes?
From:       Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-07-26 16:02:51
Message-ID: CAJeAr6snK=20tUZr-o5YPXHMccmR4F7RTy7jrbNdkeGA00cWPQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 at 19:36, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On Jul 16, 2018, at 19:27, Andrew Cagney <andrew.cagney@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > - sort it - they are currently ordered by the host dependent SADB ID!
> > - update the listed names/values - use ike_alg values
> > 
> > > From experience I know these never go to plan :-(   It might even be
> > easier to strip out most of the cases where the kernel algorithms are
> > being listed - not material to the unit under test.
> 
> If I update a test case that has ipsec status, I almost always replace it with \
> "ipsec status | grep connname" for exactly this reason.

Ah.  If my sed scripts fail me I'll try that.

Anyway, I gave up waiting and pushed the above.  Results seem to still
be mostly holding their own.  However, I've hit another missing
feature - chacha20 in the kernel.

In IRC it was agreed that we need an f28 result published so we can
see where things stand.  That didn't happened so I guess I'll kick one
off (chacha20 forced me to set up an f28 test environment).

Andrew

PS: publishing a test run is pretty easy - just copy
RESULTS/<test-run> to testing:results/<unique-name> and then wait 12
hours :-)
_______________________________________________
Swan-dev mailing list
Swan-dev@lists.libreswan.org
https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]