Bug#397309: [Pkg-uml-pkgs] Bug#397309: restoring with /etc/network/if-*down.d/uml-utilities

2006-11-06 Thread Mattia Dongili
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 12:37:56AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Monday, November 6, 2006 8:42 pm, Mattia Dongili wrote: [...] > > > test -n "${IF_UML_PROXY_ARP}" || exit 0 > > > test -n "${IF_UML_PROXY_ETHER}" || exit 0 > > > > So we have 2 undocumented options for /etc/network/interface

Bug#397309: [Pkg-uml-pkgs] Bug#397309: restoring with /etc/network/if-*down.d/uml-utilities

2006-11-06 Thread shaulka
On Monday, November 6, 2006 8:42 pm, Mattia Dongili wrote: > > 1) Is it necessary to have sysctl verbose? > Well, I'd say yes. If for no other reason, to tell the user what we are > doing. Still, are other entries in the interfaces verbose like that? One can expect that the admin who wrote the

Bug#397309: [Pkg-uml-pkgs] Bug#397309: restoring with /etc/network/if-*down.d/uml-utilities

2006-11-06 Thread Mattia Dongili
On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 03:25:32PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Package: uml-utilities > Version: 20060323-3 > Severity: normal > Tags: patch > > 1) Is it necessary to have sysctl verbose? Well, I'd say yes. If for no other reason, to tell the user what we are doing. > 2) I believe it is a

Bug#397309: restoring with /etc/network/if-*down.d/uml-utilities

2006-11-06 Thread shaulka
Package: uml-utilities Version: 20060323-3 Severity: normal Tags: patch 1) Is it necessary to have sysctl verbose? 2) I believe it is a good practice to restore the previous situation as much as possible after the work is done. --- /etc/network/if-up.d/uml-utilities 2006-04-14 20:58:37.000