> is what you're seeing explained by this?
>
> http://linux.kernel.org/pipermail/mon/2007-June/001637.html
>
Yeah, that's Murphy alright. Got a copy from CVS a week before Ed's email.
___
mon mailing list
mon@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mail
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007, Ben Ragg wrote:
> ...having a look through the code, there seems to be an evil bit of
> logic that will attempt to disable the hostgroup rather than the host
> when ever the host exists in a hostgroup by itself. What's worse is it
> appears it'll only attempt to disable the fi
On 8/16/07, Ben Ragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hostgroup a
> foo
> ...having a look through the code, there seems to be an evil bit of
> logic that will attempt to disable the hostgroup rather than the host
> when ever the host exists in a hostgroup by itself. What's worse is it
> appears it
Hi Guys,
We're experiencing a problem when attempting to disable certain hosts,
that they simply just don't disable.
The host exists in two separate hostgroups by itself (legacy reasons),
as well as existing in another hostgroup with other members.
hostgroup a
foo
hostgroup b
foo
ho
