Re: dhcpd 0.70-5 Incompatible with RR in Raleigh, NC?

2000-06-15 Thread cls--colo spgs
Dave Slotter wrote: [snip] > I don't know if I'm running slink or potato or whatever, > > [snip] // cat /etc/debian_version (2.1 = slink) (2.2 = potato) hth. bentley taylor. //

Re: dhcpd 0.70-5 Incompatible with RR in Raleigh, NC?

2000-06-15 Thread Steve Dunham
Dave Slotter wrote: > > I'm a bit confused by all of this, because dhcp-0.70 is supposed to > only > work with 2.0.x kernels, which you have, and 1.3.18 is supposed to > only > work with 2.2.x kernels. Maybe they changed the way 2.0.36 works? > (from > previous

Re: dhcpd 0.70-5 Incompatible with RR in Raleigh, NC?

2000-06-15 Thread Dave Slotter
I'm a bit confused by all of this, because dhcp-0.70 is supposed to only work with 2.0.x kernels, which you have, and 1.3.18 is supposed to only work with 2.2.x kernels. Maybe they changed the way 2.0.36 works? (from previous 2.0.x kernels.) Well, I have been havin

Re: dhcpd 0.70-5 Incompatible with RR in Raleigh, NC?

2000-06-15 Thread Steve Dunham
Dave Slotter wrote: > > While I am a newbie in regards to the naming conventions of Debian, I > have been using it for about a year now with excellent success. I > have had so much success that I upgraded from my 486 "learning box" > to a dual Celeron motherboard (ABIT BP6), 30 gig disk, 10BASE-T

dhcpd 0.70-5 Incompatible with RR in Raleigh, NC?

2000-06-15 Thread Dave Slotter
While I am a newbie in regards to the naming conventions of Debian, I have been using it for about a year now with excellent success. I have had so much success that I upgraded from my 486 "learning box" to a dual Celeron motherboard (ABIT BP6), 30 gig disk, 10BASE-T 3COM NIC on (cable modem si