On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 at 05:05:54 +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I guess the inetd se_v4mapped logical inversion fix and the “ping -w”
> support, both from upstream 1.8, would be important to have.
My backport of making tcp/udp be v4-only already included the inversion fix
as part of the conflict res
Hi!
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 21:39:28 +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> [ CC'ing explicitly Guillem in case he missed the mail ]
>
> On 11/27/2010 03:24 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 at 16:07:19 +, Hector Oron wrote:
> >> Could you consider backporting the fix to unstable/testin
[ CC'ing explicitly Guillem in case he missed the mail ]
On 11/27/2010 03:24 PM, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 at 16:07:19 +, Hector Oron wrote:
>> Could you consider backporting the fix to unstable/testing?
>
> I had a go at backporting the fixes that looked important. I have
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 at 16:07:19 +, Hector Oron wrote:
> Could you consider backporting the fix to unstable/testing?
I had a go at backporting the fixes that looked important. I haven't tested
this work-in-progress version yet, but it compiles...
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/smcv/qa/inetut
Hello,
Could you consider backporting the fix to unstable/testing?
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 02:51:10PM +, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> #404760: inetutils-inetd: [in.tftpd-hpda] received address was not AF_INET
< zumbi> #404760 needs to be unblocked?
< jcristau> zumbi: there's a freez
5 matches
Mail list logo
