On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 04:23:46PM +0200, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:19:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> > FWIW, I've recently become a co-maintainer, and now the Sarge has released,
> > I'm planning on bringing dhcp3 up to date with the latest upstream and
> > having a
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:19:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> FWIW, I've recently become a co-maintainer, and now the Sarge has released,
> I'm planning on bringing dhcp3 up to date with the latest upstream and
> having a good bash at all the bugs.
Would you consider to incorporate LDAP patch
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
> Hi List!
>
>
> Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
> in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
>
I've been told that the reason debian-installer uses dhcp-client instead of
dhcp3-client is because of the size of th
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:01:22AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:00:28 +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
> > Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
> > in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
>
>
> Some years ago when the release of sarge was supposed to be imminent
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:00:28 +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
> Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
> in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
Some years ago when the release of sarge was supposed to be imminent
it was decided not to adopt dhcp3 as the default because there wouldn't b
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
> Hi List!
>
>
> Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
> in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
>
> This client does not follow the RFC correctly. When
> it does a dhcpdiscover and the interface has been
> previously
6 matches
Mail list logo
