Your message dated Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:28:20 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: [Pkg-swan-devel] Bug#891081: Bug#891081: 5.6.2 regression:
dns attributes are lost (patch)
has caused the Debian Bug report #891081,
regarding 5.6.2 regression: dns attributes are lost (patch)
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 this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
891081: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=891081
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: strongswan-nm
Version: 5.6.2-1
Tags: patch
Using the new strongswan 5.6.2 (on Stretch) together with the
old network-manager-strongswan 1.4.2 the nameserver entries
in the generated /etc/resolv.conf are broken. They contain
some fantasy IP addresses, but not the addresses defined on
the peer. DNS lookup is broken.
Tobias Brunner provided a patch for charon-nm, see attachment.
https://lists.strongswan.org/pipermail/dev/2018-February/001870.html
Regards
Harri
diff --git a/src/charon-nm/nm/nm_service.c b/src/charon-nm/nm/nm_service.c
index 9beac392a..c42733181 100644
--- a/src/charon-nm/nm/nm_service.c
+++ b/src/charon-nm/nm/nm_service.c
@@ -65,8 +65,7 @@ static GVariant* handler_to_variant(nm_handler_t *handler,
enumerator = handler->create_enumerator(handler, type);
while (enumerator->enumerate(enumerator, &chunk))
{
- g_variant_builder_add (&builder, "u",
- g_variant_new_uint32 (*(uint32_t*)chunk.ptr));
+ g_variant_builder_add (&builder, "u", *(uint32_t*)chunk.ptr);
}
enumerator->destroy(enumerator);
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Version: 5.6.3-1
On Tue, 2018-07-10 at 08:22 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Would you agree that this bug report can be closed then?
Indeed, thanks for the reminder.
- --
Yves-Alexis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEE8vi34Qgfo83x35gF3rYcyPpXRFsFAltHV3QACgkQ3rYcyPpX
RFv9swf/Sbl72CL+pvFx55tw3QREKP+6NaUy1urmf5v8t/a8T4dsJtzN4mSfnrHp
WvrzDEi8bp3zUz7A+6+t3lD1D5ngsioodFGUbBo0xPeSc+8XV9shYKl9kqMJR2qs
jmYCFpLQgxUofqCCSlt6e/6K+TWYArMkm6yLfk55liQWI8pGf7k/vNRbzEE9A535
DauX3Y4I+Huza+aIAlTGd0bW2gqjLDA0ElMfeAX12ieNQnUAf5y8reeEWJfq7MrR
H2lRREK7G0J6rzghOdIOESkJz0bG6JGkDUk1QYA/fQBuU9Cx6E8qnXso+5+C2e6F
eMNajqnHTlgcEqtv95rnO3LI+Id8VA==
=ntTx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---
