The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thing to do, as the TCP MD5 checksums are not necessary for the vast
majority of
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thing to do, as the
Wesley Shields wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thing to do, as the TCP MD5
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
I agree. Two ports are overkill for only TCPMD5 option. And it
should not be a show stopper for the port update.
Should not be, but is. If you can convince Boris to update the port
without having a working MD5 patch then my reasoning
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:41:11PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I
