On Oct 08, md wrote:
> > Marco: would it be acceptable to apply this patch (or one of your
> > design with similar effect), or do you want the CTTE to continue its
> > laborious process?
> I believe I already stated my position on this, and I see no new facts
> from the submitter.
For the records
On Fri, 08 Oct 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 08, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > Marco: would it be acceptable to apply this patch (or one of your
> > design with similar effect), or do you want the CTTE to continue its
> > laborious process?
>
> I believe I already stated my position on this, and I
On Oct 08, Don Armstrong wrote:
> Marco: would it be acceptable to apply this patch (or one of your
> design with similar effect), or do you want the CTTE to continue its
> laborious process?
I believe I already stated my position on this, and I see no new facts
from the submitter.
--
ciao,
Mar
On Wed, 11 Aug 2010, Adam Borowski wrote:
> --- netbase.postinst.orig 2010-08-10 23:05:42.440582610 +0200
> +++ netbase.postinst 2010-08-10 23:06:37.256578113 +0200
> @@ -57,6 +57,20 @@
> EOF
> }
>
> +# delete bindv6only.conf that was created by 4.38 .. 4.42
> +remove_bindv6only_conf() {
>
Oops, meant to send that to #592551.
But anyway, here's a patch for the issue.
--
1KB // Microsoft corollary to Hanlon's razor:
// Never attribute to stupidity what can be
// adequately explained by malice.
--- netbase.postinst.orig 2010-08-10
5 matches
Mail list logo
