Hi Alban, On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:15:18AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Thank you for giving us a zeroconf implementation. > I read the bug report about the (C) issue but found it less > important than the "upstream" url pointing to a non existant > page. I was willing to learn more about this zeroconf > implementation and was a bit at lost. > > Should i read progsoc mailing list, is debian archive the newx > upstream (maybe the url should be changed to the debian archive) > ?
The upstream URL not existing should be fixed shortly - it's a problem with Progsoc Apache configuration. If the webpage isn't clear or doesn't have enough information on it, please let me know. > Today I have asked for the data i was interested in (if > zeroconf open ports on the interfaces it uses) : > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=302684 > > Though i have other questions , is this "zeroconf" > implementation described in hte ietf draft or does it go beyond > it ? It is intended to follow the ietf-draft and I regard any deviations as a bug. However I have NOT validated the implementation completely against the latest draft (17). > I feel lame as the source is available but i am working on other > packages right now and would still use zeroconf even .if i won't > have time to look it in depth before long. Well I welcome any questions you have, although I am hoping that zeroconf becomes a packages that most people 'apt-get install' and know that it just works. Regards, Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
