Your message dated Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:48:42 +0200
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#314428: pon should become symlink to ifup
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; 16 Jun 2005 07:09:03 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 16 00:09:03 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mailgate1.uni-kl.de [131.246.120.5]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DioUo-0000yY-00; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:09:02 -0700
Received: from debian.localnet (rotes255.wohnheim.uni-kl.de [131.246.178.65])
by mailgate1.uni-kl.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j5G790VQ016441;
Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:09:01 +0200
Received: from inet by debian.localnet with local (Exim 4.51)
id 1DioUm-0002sN-SZ; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:09:00 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pon should become symlink to ifup
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.12
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 09:09:00 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: ppp
Version: 2.4.3-20050321+2
Severity: normal
Hello,
the subject says it all. Currently, you forced most DSL users to
have an interfaces entry for getting the ethernet interface up (*).
So, by default pon is broken now, since the interface is down after the
reboot. IMO to fix that problem, either hooks in the config files needs
to be fixed for pppoe connections (to run ifconfig from them (**)), or
you should continue with the next logical step: throw away pon and make
symlink pon/poff to ifup/ifdown.
The transition should not be very complicated - first you make sure that
everything works well within ppp, then you pass this bug over to
ifupdown where some things need to be adopted (recognizing pon/poff as
command names).
Regards,
Eduard.
(*): just for cosmetics reasons which I still do not understand but
unfortunately "the maintainer is always right" rule applies
(**): which is a pain in the ass or just bloat, you need to run a
separate tool just to enable an interface that "belongs" to this
connection anyway
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (990, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.12-rc5
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Versions of packages ppp depends on:
ii libc6 2.3.2.ds1-22 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii libpam-modules 0.76-22 Pluggable Authentication Modules f
ii libpam-runtime 0.76-22 Runtime support for the PAM librar
ii libpam0g 0.76-22 Pluggable Authentication Modules l
ii libpcap0.7 0.7.2-7 System interface for user-level pa
ii makedev 2.3.1-78 creates device files in /dev
ii netbase 4.21 Basic TCP/IP networking system
ii procps 1:3.2.5-1 /proc file system utilities
ii zlib1g 1:1.2.2-4 compression library - runtime
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 314428-done) by bugs.debian.org; 16 Jun 2005 17:48:52 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jun 16 10:48:51 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from attila.bofh.it [213.92.8.2] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DiyTz-0004ec-00; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:48:51 -0700
Received: by attila.bofh.it (Postfix, from userid 10)
id CD6815F727; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:48:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by wonderland.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 1001)
id 212EC1CE01; Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:48:42 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:48:42 +0200
To: Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#314428: pon should become symlink to ifup
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri)
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=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jun 16, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fine. The same way I can tell you "the ifup patch has its purposes" but
> it seems that you differentiate "good" and "bad" facts, based on _your_
> point of view.
Yes, this is what maintainers do. Do not insist unless you can provide
new arguments.
> But... did you ever care about user complaints?
You are the first to complain.
--=20
ciao,
Marco
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCsbt6FGfw2OHuP7ERAhNbAJ9FRekKX7ySYn7LZejS0+YWx8AopQCffdys
2QEhalhls0W0pow76cJu7yk=
=o39t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--XsQoSWH+UP9D9v3l--
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
