Your message dated Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:17:06 -0700
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#332581: fixed in ntop 2:3.2rc1-3
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; 7 Oct 2005 07:30:07 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Oct 07 00:30:07 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from c-adt-5.ataco.se (bixbite.opalsys.net) [213.115.168.248] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1ENmgB-00013X-00; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 00:30:07 -0700
Received: from ola by bixbite.opalsys.net with local (Exim 4.50)
        id 1ENmfx-0007YQ-8A; Fri, 07 Oct 2005 09:29:53 +0200
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 09:29:53 +0200
From: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Alexander Kulak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ntop do not monitor ports defined in /etc/ntop/protocol.list
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[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/1.5.9i
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-Level: 
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

Package: ntop
Version: 2:3a3.0-5
Severity: normal

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 10:29:31AM +0300, Alexander Kulak wrote:
> Hello, Ola Lundqvist.
> 
> 
> >>Probably the bug in ntop_2%3a3.0-5_i386.deb in debian sarge:
> >>command line switch is missing:
> >>-p /etc/ntop/protocol.list
> >>Without this, ntop doesn't use this file.
> > Do you refer to an existing bugreport or is this a new report?
> 
> I don't know, I didn't look for existing reports.

Ok then I'll file it is a new bugreport.

> 
> > What do not work if you have not provided this option?
> 
> ntop doesn't monitor the ports defined in /etc/ntop/protocol.list,
> but this file exists and is mentioned in README.Debian.

Good to know, thanks.

Regards,

// Ola


> 
> -- 
> Alexander Kulak
> Rainbow Technologies BY
> head of system administration sector
> 

-- 
 --- Ola Lundqvist systemkonsult --- M Sc in IT Engineering ----
/  [EMAIL PROTECTED]                   Annebergsslingan 37        \
|  [EMAIL PROTECTED]                   654 65 KARLSTAD            |
|  http://www.opal.dhs.org           Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
\  gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9  /
 ---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 332581-close) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Oct 2005 18:18:07 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 08 11:18:07 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from katie by spohr.debian.org with local (Exim 3.36 1 (Debian))
        id 1EOJFq-0004VQ-00; Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:17:06 -0700
From: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.56 $
Subject: Bug#332581: fixed in ntop 2:3.2rc1-3
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2005 11:17:06 -0700
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-Level: 
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

Source: ntop
Source-Version: 2:3.2rc1-3

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
ntop, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

ntop_3.2rc1-3.diff.gz
  to pool/main/n/ntop/ntop_3.2rc1-3.diff.gz
ntop_3.2rc1-3.dsc
  to pool/main/n/ntop/ntop_3.2rc1-3.dsc
ntop_3.2rc1-3_i386.deb
  to pool/main/n/ntop/ntop_3.2rc1-3_i386.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated ntop package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Sat,  8 Oct 2005 19:05:18 +0200
Source: ntop
Binary: ntop
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2:3.2rc1-3
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 ntop       - display network usage in top-like format
Closes: 332581 332775
Changes: 
 ntop (2:3.2rc1-3) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Applied patch from Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to make ntop build
     properly on some more architectures, closes: #332775.
   * Added /etc/ntop/protocol.list to the init script, closes: #332581.
Files: 
 343bdca32d628d8005e5471baa3f6600 717 net optional ntop_3.2rc1-3.dsc
 9c5ee8e3c5525147bcc962cfa76663b7 198619 net optional ntop_3.2rc1-3.diff.gz
 17ce4ad0d0c00f06fb905a422ce0dcea 2723858 net optional ntop_3.2rc1-3_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFDSA48GKGxzw/lPdkRAkdcAKCzAPT4Y9NErW9poIsucoonhMzwtwCfRsCD
8p5kE2n+/xSF/200as5ep0E=
=/x6k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to