Your message dated Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:47:48 -0400
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#304219: fixed in pppoeconf 1.6
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; 11 Apr 2005 19:02:24 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 11 12:02:24 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from natsmtp00.rzone.de [81.169.145.165] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DL4Ay-0003Of-00; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 12:02:24 -0700
Received: from Wasserstoff.reagenzglas.org (p5089FF98.dip.t-dialin.net 
[80.137.255.152])
        by post.webmailer.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3BJ2KZk024780
        for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:02:21 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from wolfram by Wasserstoff.reagenzglas.org with local (Exim 4.50)
        id 1DL4Iu-000550-2V
        for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:10:36 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Wolfram Tomalla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: pppoeconf produces broken 0clampmss
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.8
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:10:35 +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=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE,
        RCVD_IN_DSBL autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: pppoeconf
Version: 1.5
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable


The /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/0clampmss
created by pppoeconf is broken:
[..]
iptables -p "$PPP_IFACE" [..]

the -p option is for protocol it probably should be -i for interface


This results in all kind of strange errors on the mashines behind, if
the computer is used as a router.

CU

Wolfram Tomalla


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (500, 'testing'), (50, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-k7
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968)

Versions of packages pppoeconf depends on:
ii  gettext-base            0.14.1-10        GNU Internationalization utilities
ii  ppp                     2.4.2+20040428-6 Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) daem
ii  pppoe                   3.5-4            PPP over Ethernet driver
ii  sed                     4.1.2-8          The GNU sed stream editor
ii  whiptail [whiptail-prov 0.51.6-20        Displays user-friendly dialog boxe

-- no debconf information

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 304219-close) by bugs.debian.org; 11 Apr 2005 20:53:02 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Apr 11 13:53:02 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DL5u2-0004YE-00; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 13:53:02 -0700
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DL5oy-0005wY-00; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:47:48 -0400
From: Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.55 $
Subject: Bug#304219: fixed in pppoeconf 1.6
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:47:48 -0400
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: 

Source: pppoeconf
Source-Version: 1.6

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

pppoeconf_1.6.dsc
  to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.6.dsc
pppoeconf_1.6.tar.gz
  to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.6.tar.gz
pppoeconf_1.6_all.deb
  to pool/main/p/pppoeconf/pppoeconf_1.6_all.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.
Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated pppoeconf 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: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:27:17 +0200
Source: pppoeconf
Binary: pppoeconf
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: high
Maintainer: Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 pppoeconf  - configures PPPoE/ADSL connections
Closes: 304219
Changes: 
 pppoeconf (1.6) unstable; urgency=high
 .
   * replaced -p with -o in the iptables call (stupid typo, closes: #304219)
Files: 
 887c63a2b9aa7cde8195b1901058872e 518 net optional pppoeconf_1.6.dsc
 6c7b4c07b335fa16dba75d5a1bddeca7 42232 net optional pppoeconf_1.6.tar.gz
 9ff14c017b942f43d3b7c13dd2539401 40010 net optional pppoeconf_1.6_all.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCWt5Y4QZIHu3wCMURAnOxAJ9x04JzMCKqnp7FTGnk3cRN73Ya3QCeKAEx
IAtyazeObV8izf5O0Hzxy5s=
=1C5G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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

Reply via email to