On Sun, Nov 19, 2006 at 09:05:08PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Nov 19, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I'd like to receive comments about:
> > > - shipping /etc/networks in netbase
> > > - adding 169.254.0.0 to it
> > The second makes sense to me.
> I am not sure. For a start,
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Nov 19, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I'd like to receive comments about:
>> > - shipping /etc/networks in netbase
>> > - adding 169.254.0.0 to it
>> The second makes sense to me.
> I am not sure. For a start, I would need to add *all*
On Nov 19, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd like to receive comments about:
> > - shipping /etc/networks in netbase
> > - adding 169.254.0.0 to it
> The second makes sense to me.
I am not sure. For a start, I would need to add *all* /24 in the
link-local networks space since /etc/ne
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'd like to receive comments about:
> - shipping /etc/networks in netbase
> - adding 169.254.0.0 to it
The second makes sense to me. Why would moving it to base-files make
sense, though? I thought the theory was that a system without any network
interf
ect: base-files: please ship /etc/networks and include "link-local
169.254.0.0" to it
Package: base-files
Version: 4
Severity: wishlist
Hi!
Please ship /etc/networks in base-files and include the following
single line in it:
link-local 169.254.0.0
If defined like this tools like &
5 matches
Mail list logo
