Your message dated Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:04:52 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line IP address vs correct interface name in
/etc/default/dhcp3-server
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 May 2005 12:57:25 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 23 05:57:25 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mxsf04.cluster1.charter.net [209.225.28.204]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DaCUm-0004cJ-00; Mon, 23 May 2005 05:57:24 -0700
Received: from mxip17a.cluster1.charter.net (mxip17a.cluster1.charter.net
[209.225.28.147])
by mxsf04.cluster1.charter.net (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id
j4NCur4b004860
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 23 May 2005 08:56:53 -0400
Received: from 24-176-12-215.dhcp.klmz.mi.charter.com (HELO HEATHER)
(24.176.12.215)
by mxip17a.cluster1.charter.net with ESMTP; 23 May 2005 08:56:53 -0400
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.93,128,1115006400";
d="scan'208"; a="1103585207:sNHT19310982"
From: "Michael Lueck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 08:56:37 -0400
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.20.2717) For Windows 2000 (5.0.2195;4)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: IP address vs correct interface name in /etc/default/dhcp3-server
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_01,HAS_PACKAGE,
TO_ADDRESS_EQ_REAL autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: dhcp3-server
Version: 3.0.1-2
Severity: important
I have a laptop (test server) running Debian Sarge, and needed the dhcpd
installed for the test mobile LAN. dhcpd was failing to start reporting...
*** begin syslog ***
No subnet declaration for 10.10.10.14 (0.0.0.0).
** Ignoring requests on 10.10.10.14. If this is not what
you want, please write a subnet declaration
in your dhcpd.conf file for the network segment
to which interface 10.10.10.14 is attached. **
*** end syslog ***
but the config files I was using were our standard working ones only adjusted
to match the IP of this test mobile LAN. I finally tracked down the trouble per
this list message.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2004/12/msg03220.html
The comments in this file state that the interface name should be provided,
instead the IP address was given. We have never had need to adjust this file on
servers, thus the IP address must have gotten there through the installation of
the package. As far as I can tell this is a laptop related bug as this is our
first mobile server running Sarge, all other servers have been desktop / server
class machines.
I found this other bug 292357 related to in running dhcpd on laptops. It looks
like dhcpd on laptops comes with its own unique features.
Michael Lueck
Lueck Data Systems
http://www.lueckdatasystems.com/
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 310414-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Jun 2005 02:04:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 14 19:04:57 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from daedalus.andrew.net.au [210.18.204.2] (root)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DiNGz-0001ro-00; Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:04:57 -0700
Received: from daedalus.andrew.net.au (localhost.andrew.net.au [127.0.0.1])
by daedalus.andrew.net.au (8.13.3/8.13.3/Debian-6) with ESMTP id
j5F24rf8027863
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:04:53 +1000
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by daedalus.andrew.net.au (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j5F24qBG027862;
Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:04:52 +1000
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:04:52 +1000
From: Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Michael Lueck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IP address vs correct interface name in /etc/default/dhcp3-server
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.51 on 210.18.204.2
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no
version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:14:07PM -0400, Michael Lueck wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 09:35:13 +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> >Check if the answers are still in the database after purging by using the
> >debconf-communicate stuff I emailed you previously, and we'll take it from
> >there.
>
> bing bing! Answers are indeed purged so that is cool.
>
> And.... the installation asked for an interface name! It also warned that it
> is
> non-authortative by default, bla bla bla... None of this fired before when
> adding the dhcp server package after the install, most odd.
>
> One other thing I did do is flip my apt sources to point to stable now that
> Sarge 3.1 is in stable... so that also caused a couple dozen packages to
> update
> which were not current. Kind of a pain to test on a box which as not checked
> in
> since a distro moves from testing to stable! ;-)
>
> Anyway, I think it is safe to close this for now. If it comes back using the
> Sarge 3.1a CD, then I know where to look first to see if the config file is
> incorrect... or start wondering if I am not asked to fill in an answer.
>
> Thanks!
>
Righto. Closing this bug then.
regards
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
