On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 04:23:46PM +0200, Milan P. Stanic wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:19:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
FWIW, I've recently become a co-maintainer, and now the Sarge has released,
I'm planning on bringing dhcp3 up to date with the latest upstream and
having a good
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 12:01:22AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:00:28 +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
Some years ago when the release of sarge was supposed to be imminent
it was
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
Hi List!
Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
I've been told that the reason debian-installer uses dhcp-client instead of
dhcp3-client is because of the size of the
On Sun, Jun 12, 2005 at 10:19:03PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
FWIW, I've recently become a co-maintainer, and now the Sarge has released,
I'm planning on bringing dhcp3 up to date with the latest upstream and
having a good bash at all the bugs.
Would you consider to incorporate LDAP patch to
Hi List!
Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
This client does not follow the RFC correctly. When
it does a dhcpdiscover and the interface has been
previously configured with some ip address it is still
using that ip for the
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:56:07AM +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
Hi List!
Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
This client does not follow the RFC correctly. When
it does a dhcpdiscover and the interface has been
previously
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 09:00:28 +0200, Nicolas Kreft wrote:
Is it for a special reason that the default dhcp-client
in sarge is ancient (version 2.0pl5)?
Some years ago when the release of sarge was supposed to be imminent
it was decided not to adopt dhcp3 as the default because there wouldn't be
7 matches
Mail list logo
