Hello
I've just prepared a 0.99.10-1lenny1 version that includes the
one-line patch. While the original version seems to ignore
simple route additions with "ip route", the patched one shows
them (example below).
If any of the upstream authors answers to the mail to quagga-dev,
I'll upload the patch immediately and ask on debian-release for
an unblock.
Example:
Router# show ip route
Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF,
I - ISIS, B - BGP, > - selected route, * - FIB route
K>* 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.42.1, eth0
C>* 127.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, lo
C>* 192.168.42.0/24 is directly connected, eth0
K>* 192.168.66.0/24 via 192.168.42.66, eth0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Router# show ip route
Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF,
I - ISIS, B - BGP, > - selected route, * - FIB route
K>* 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.42.1, eth0
C>* 127.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, lo
C>* 192.168.42.0/24 is directly connected, eth0
Router# show ip route
Codes: K - kernel route, C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, O - OSPF,
I - ISIS, B - BGP, > - selected route, * - FIB route
K>* 0.0.0.0/0 via 192.168.42.1, eth0
C>* 127.0.0.0/8 is directly connected, lo
C>* 192.168.42.0/24 is directly connected, eth0
K>* 192.168.66.0/24 via 192.168.42.66, eth0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bye,
-christian-
Am Fri, 2 Jan 2009 03:37:51 +0100
schrieb Cyril Brulebois <k...@debian.org>:
> Paul Cupis <p...@cupis.co.uk> (20/11/2008):
> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 06:20:22PM +0100, Friedemann Stoyan wrote:
> > > I run into the same trouble, quagga 0.99.10-1 is completely
> > > unusable for me. I compiled quagga source 0.99.11-1 from unstable
> > > for lenny. This version fixes the bug. Please unblock quagga
> > > 0.99.11-1.
> >
> > Upstream are considering dumping 0.99.11 due to a bug in the OSPF
> > code
> > - 0.99.12 is due to be released in the coming weeks with the fix (or
> > can be patched etc).
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering what to do with quagga for that bug WRT lenny. The diff
> between .10 and .11 is *huge*¹. Would a backport of the specific patch
> (as the one proposed by Hannes Schulz) for lenny be acceptable for a
> t-p-u upload?
>
> ¹: 206 files changed, 5133 insertions(+), 25909 deletions(-) according
> to a diffstat on a source debdiff.
>
> Hannes, did you contact upstream asking whether your patch would be
> suitable on top of .10? If you didn't, could you please do so, and
> point to the first mail of the thread by replying to the Debian
> bugreport, so that one can easily track it?
>
> Thanks for your time!
>
> Mraw,
> KiBi.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
