On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 09:59:39PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I just generated one of these mails for myself, and I think it's
> perfectly reasonably worded. The subject "Segfault in Samba",
> however, could be worded more neutrally. How about this:
I think this might be a little /too/ neu
I just generated one of these mails for myself, and I think it's
perfectly reasonably worded. The subject "Segfault in Samba",
however, could be worded more neutrally. How about this:
Index: debian/panic-action
===
--- debian/panic-
Quoting Christoph Hohmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Package: samba
> Version: 3.0.23b-1
> Severity: normal
>
> After upgrading to samba 3.0.23b smbd did not start anymore because I
> had an invalid configuration option in smb.conf. Because of that I got a
> mail from the panic action script that told
Package: samba
Version: 3.0.23b-1
Severity: normal
After upgrading to samba 3.0.23b smbd did not start anymore because I
had an invalid configuration option in smb.conf. Because of that I got a
mail from the panic action script that told me samba had crashed with a
segfault. But if samba terminate
4 matches
Mail list logo
