https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #24 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: wide-dhcpv6
Short Description: DHCP Client and Server for IPv6
Upstream URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|needinfo?(d...@bevhost.com) |
--- Comment #23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL
7.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.el7
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.fc20
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL
6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.el6
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/wide-dhcpv6-20080615-13.1.fc21
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #22 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
(David let me know if you still need a sponsor, or for that matter if you lost
interest and we should find another/co maintainer.
Sorry this review took so long - It had gotten lost in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||d...@bevhost.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #20 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
Updated to Fedora 20 with many thanks for the patch from Scott Shambarger
http://repo.bevhost.com/fedora/wide-dhcpv6.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #19 from Scott Shambarger scott-red...@shambarger.net ---
BTW, I wrote a patch for dhclient to allow it to request an address and prefix
simultaneously (albeit for the older 4.2.4), see:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Scott Shambarger scott-red...@shambarger.net changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #18 from Scott Shambarger scott-red...@shambarger.net ---
Created attachment 849175
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=849175action=edit
Fix compile error on F20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #16 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=967529
PPPoE does not attempt DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #15 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
SPEC URL: http://repo.bevhost.com/fedora/wide-dhcpv6.spec
SRPM URL:
http://repo.bevhost.com/fedora/wide-dhcpv6-20080615-11.1.4.fc18.src.rpm
Things I know about that might affect the
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #11 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
Proposed additional file in /usr/share/doc/
WHY USE WIDE-DHCPv6?
Generally speaking the main DHCP package for RedHat from ISC is
a much more complete implementation
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #12 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
root@localhost ~/rpmbuild/SPECS # cat
../SOURCES/wide-dhcpv6-0008-Make-sla-len-somewhat-automatic.patch
--- wide-dhcpv6-20080615/prefixconf.c.orig2013-05-14
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #13 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
sure the cflags/linker flags make it properly. You can check using this
script that is not yet integrated into rpmlint:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #14 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #10)
PS: still not sure about SELINUX policies. I need to test this too.
I've been running tests in enforcing targeted mode without any problems.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #10 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
- The upstream version is kinda awkward, but it's probably best to stick with
it as you did.
- I would include your patches as source, instead
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #6 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
- Why use ubuntu_release and my_release ?
The idea I had was that should ubuntu release a new version with new patches
you just change the ubuntu
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #7 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
- For make, at least use: make %{?_smp_mflags}
When I do that or -j3, I get the following...
bison -y -d cfparse.y
bison -y -d cfparse.y
mv
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #8 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
(In reply to comment #5)
- Use tmpfiles for the run directory (see other daemon packages, eg xl2tpd
or nsd)
The PID files are created in /var/run, so I think I'll have
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #9 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
re: #7 I guess that's a dependency error in the Makefile then Nice to fix,
but leaving out smp_flags is fine.
re: #8 I guess they could stay in /var/run/ (which is
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #4 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
I've made quite a few fixes.
Spec URL: https://github.com/bevhost/wide-dhcpv6/raw/master/wide-dhcpv6.spec
SRPM URL:
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #5 from Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com ---
- Is the copyright disclaimer on the spec file really needed? It's not
normally put under its own copyright
- The upstream version is kinda awkward, but it's probably best
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #1 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
This is my first package.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||177841
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956147
--- Comment #3 from David Beveridge d...@bevhost.com ---
see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626514
ISC dhcp does not support ppp and ipv6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
40 matches
Mail list logo
