Hi, MartМn.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:25:15PM -0300, MartМn Ferrari wrote:
> > Thank you for this reference. As a Debian maintainer you can update URL
> > in the "vtun" package description block, and I ask you to do that.
>
> The homepage in the description is correct. Only that the download
Hi, MartМn.
The fix for an UDP timeout handling bug is in a patch below.
It was compiled with lzo1 and verified on Debian/testing.
Version of VTUN was incremented to 3.0.2.
In next mail I'll return to the discussion and answer questions.
--
Eugene Berdnikov
--
Oops. I'll update the page.
Eugene Berdnikov wrote:
Where is 3.01? Page http://vtun.sourceforge.net/download.html have only
references for 3.0.0, that's why I did not submit this patch again.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
Eugene,
On 10/17/07, Eugene Berdnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's outdated, use
> > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2947
>
> Thank you for this reference. As a Debian maintainer you can update URL
> in the "vtun" package description block, and I ask you to do th
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 10:57:19AM -0300, MartМn Ferrari wrote:
> On 10/17/07, Eugene Berdnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Where is 3.01? Page http://vtun.sourceforge.net/download.html have only
> > references for 3.0.0, that's why I did not submit this patch again.
>
> That's outdated, use
On 10/17/07, Eugene Berdnikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:05:11AM -0700, bishop wrote:
> > That patch looks pretty mangled and the (apparent) Artifact ID it
> > references doesn't look valid.
> ...
> > I've recognized to be the bug so reported. I'll put it on my queue,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 01:05:11AM -0700, bishop wrote:
> That patch looks pretty mangled and the (apparent) Artifact ID it
> references doesn't look valid.
...
> I've recognized to be the bug so reported. I'll put it on my queue, but
> I can't say when I'd be able to generate a set of patches f
Hi Bishop,
On 10/17/07, bishop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That patch looks pretty mangled and the (apparent) Artifact ID it
> references doesn't look valid.
>
> Is the problem still occurring? But I think you're asking the same
> question, and I've never seen such a problem in my own set-up; n
Hi Martin,
That patch looks pretty mangled and the (apparent) Artifact ID it
references doesn't look valid.
Is the problem still occurring? But I think you're asking the same
question, and I've never seen such a problem in my own set-up; not that
I've recognized to be the bug so reported.
9 matches
Mail list logo