On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 05:49:32PM +0100, hans wrote:
> On Mar 12 16:36:37, rob...@peichaer.org wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 04:57:04PM +0100, hans wrote:
> > > Has the attitude towards /etc/hosts changed again?
> > > After a fresh install of current/i386,
> > >
> > > 127.0.0.1 local
On Mar 12 17:25:45, rob...@peichaer.org wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 05:49:32PM +0100, hans wrote:
> > On Mar 12 16:36:37, rob...@peichaer.org wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 04:57:04PM +0100, hans wrote:
> > > > Has the attitude towards /etc/hosts changed again?
> > > > After a fresh inst
On Mar 12 16:36:37, rob...@peichaer.org wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 04:57:04PM +0100, hans wrote:
> > Has the attitude towards /etc/hosts changed again?
> > After a fresh install of current/i386,
> >
> > 127.0.0.1 localhost
> > ::1 localhost
> > 192.168.22.4w
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 04:57:04PM +0100, hans wrote:
> Has the attitude towards /etc/hosts changed again?
> After a fresh install of current/i386,
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
> ::1 localhost
> 192.168.22.4www.stare.cz www
>
> The first two I would expect.
> Th
Has the attitude towards /etc/hosts changed again?
After a fresh install of current/i386,
127.0.0.1 localhost
::1 localhost
192.168.22.4www.stare.cz www
The first two I would expect.
The last one was assigned to me via DHCP during install;
I am changi
5 matches
Mail list logo