Beware: change in configuration file semantics

[Niall O'Reilly]

On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:38, David W. Hankins wrote:

> i have a suspicion that you have found a typo in one of your config
> files, or an extremely odd bug.

	Mea culpa.  Sorry for the confusion.

	The config file contained duplicate definitions for the same
	option code, thus:

     option option-150 code 150 = ip-address;
     option tftp-server-address code 150 = ip-address;

	[Right hand not knowing what left was doing, alas!]

	Before 3.1.0, such an error was accommodated;  whether by
	"silent lossage" of some kind, or rather by adding both names
	as synonyms, I don't know.  It never seemed to give us trouble.

	I guess that something in the way that the option dictionary
	(or whatever) is managed is different in 3.1.0 and later.

	The collision is not recognized as a validation failure, but
	only a subsequent reference to the occluded (earlier-defined)
	option name is treated as such.  I see this as a bug. IMHO,
	the error message should be generated by the actual error,
	and not by some downstream consequence.

	I'm sending it separately to the 'bugs' mailbox.


	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20080215/86d42264/attachment.bin>