On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 12:47:05PM -, Arnaud Quette wrote:
> you're right that the double check is too much, and only due to legacy and
> not enough time to make 100 % clean things (that's really a minor point).
Actually, what I question is whether the content check is worth doing.
But perhap
2009/7/1 Martin Maney
> > the solution Martin has proposed can only be considered as a temporary
> local
> > fix (ie on your boxes but not for an upload) for affected users, for the
> > reason I mentioned in the Debian bug linked.
>
> Not disagreeing, but frankly I can't see any very great value i
> the solution Martin has proposed can only be considered as a temporary local
> fix (ie on your boxes but not for an upload) for affected users, for the
> reason I mentioned in the Debian bug linked.
Not disagreeing, but frankly I can't see any very great value in the
additional check of the flag
Hey Martin and Chuck,
thanks for the (double) report, Martin and to both for pinging me (hard to
get back from a month of vacation!).
you've guessed right about Lenny, and the fact that this doesn't affect
prev. release due to the late appearance of libupsclient and the various
work around it.
n
Public bug reported:
Binary package hint: nut
It's barely possible that Ubuntu isn't vulnerable to this - I discovered
it, and did the actual smoke tests, on a Debian Lenny machine. The
problem is that the nut init script's powerdown function relies on
calling upsmon -K at a very late point, and
