Hi, Am Montag, den 11.06.2012, 01:20 +0200 schrieb Andreas Henriksson: > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:27:02PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > [...] > > I don’t think it is correct to close the bug if the problem has not been > > fixed; if you think that dhcp client is not at fault, then the bugs > > needs to be reassigned. > > > > Reassigning to iproute; the different behaviour of ip and route at least > > requires some thought. But I also believe that something is fishy about > > the ifupdown/iproute-interaction, as the metric argument is not > > successfully passed down. > > And what do you want me to do with this? It's definitely not a bug in > iproute2.
please have a look at http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=676323#10 Is it correct and desirable that “route” will add a second route with the same metric without complaining, while “ip route” will not? Thanks, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nome...@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nome...@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
