Re: [crack-attack-devel] Crack-Attack! 1.1.15 cvs 01 Testing

[Andrew Sayman]

Antonio Ospite wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 19:40:32 -0400
> Andrew Sayman <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > ===========================
> > Crack-Attack! 1.1.15 CVS 01
> > ===========================
> >
> > It's time to begin testing for a new release.
> >
> > Over the 1.1.15 development cycle we changed the networking code to
> > use ENet[1]. This has two important implications:
> > 1) 1.1.15 is not backwards compatible with any other versions of
> > crack-attack at all.
> > 2) We need people to test the new code to death!
>
> 3) keep out of the game the IPv6 guys :)
>
> As far as I can see ENet is NOT IPv6 aware, are you really sure you
> want to stick to IPv4 world?
> A year ago I made a patch [1] to make crack-attack Address Family
> independent, so that both IPv4 and IPv6 could be used but now this
> patch is simply useless since ENet does not allow a flexible handling
> of those "low level" networking details.

I remember this, but I guess it was dropped in the sands of time and those 
things that are missed here or there. We have a patch tracker on Savannah if 
this ever comes up again!

> Form my viewpoint the new crack-attack release will be less extensible
> than the previous one. And consider that most linux distributions are
> making efforts to port software to use IPv6, please note that it is not
> just a _future_ technology anymore.

Not allowing IPv6 was not an intentional decision. In reality, the move to ENet 
was to encourage taking as much networking code out of crack-attack proper as 
possible. Ultimately the networking code is cleaner in general, so if some other 
library turns out to suit our needs it will be easier to use.

Another thing is that I really don't know much about IPv6 or how it's 
implemented. I'll read your linked doc though.

> Anyway, I see that ENet can be very handy for you so maybe the solution
> is to ask ENet developers to improve their library to achieve Address
> Family independence [2], albeit the library seems to be untouched by a
> very long time, and I do not know if there will be further development
> or support.

They haven't had a release in a long time, but there is still semi-active 
development. Last time I checked the nightly tarballs weren't being updated 
correctly, but the CVS was. In fact, just this month the developer posted a 
patch to the list. It just hasn't been applied.

I'm going to look over their mailing lists to see if anybody has brought up IPv6 
before and see about starting a discussion about it.

> Don't take me wrong, I don't want to look too hard, I wanted just to
> point out the limits of EFnet, if you use it you should know _all_ the
> important implications :)

Thanks for bringing it up. Does this make crack-attack multi-player unusable for 
you?

> BTW, a big thanks for your work on crack-attack, even if i don't play
> it by a very long time. I have been an addicted in the past and now
> I try to use it with moderation :)

The biggest problem with working out a release is that I spend hours "testing" 
the builds.

Andrew Sayman