Your message dated 02 Jun 2002 18:11:56 +0100
with message-id <1023037916.763.24.camel@kc>
and subject line no bug here
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 23 Mar 2002 19:50:42 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Mar 23 13:50:42 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from emailhub.stusta.mhn.de (mailhub.stusta.mhn.de) [141.84.69.5]
by master.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 16orXG-0003zK-00; Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:50:42 -0600
Received: (qmail 20980 invoked from network); 23 Mar 2002 19:50:41 -0000
Received: from r108152.stusta.swh.mhn.de (HELO there) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
by mailhub.stusta.mhn.de with SMTP; 23 Mar 2002 19:50:41 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ifconfig
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 20:50:04 +0100
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
package: ifconfig
from: woody, disk bf2.4
when specifying a default gateway for a pcmcia network device ifconfig fails
to set the correct network address and netmask.
e.g. ifconfig eth0 10.150.108.153 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 10.150.108.254
result for "ifconfig"
eth0 address 10.150.108.254 (same as set for gateway!)
workaround only with seperate configuration over "route"
greetings
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 139626-done) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jun 2002 17:11:57 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jun 02 12:11:57 2002
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mta01-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.41]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 17EYtZ-00074p-00; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 12:11:57 -0500
Received: from kc.cam.armlinux.org ([62.253.135.163])
by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com
(InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP
id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 18:11:56 +0100
Received: from localhost
([127.0.0.1] helo=localhost.localdomain ident=pb)
by kc.cam.armlinux.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 17EYtY-0000Cv-00
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:11:56 +0100
Subject: no bug here
From: Philip Blundell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3
Date: 02 Jun 2002 18:11:56 +0100
Message-Id: <1023037916.763.24.camel@kc>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The boot-floppies don't use the syntax in question. Come to that, I
think they might even use ifconfig from busybox rather than net-tools.
At any rate, this shouldn't be a problem.
p.
Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>ifconfig gw
>
> is not a valid syntax and never was. I am not sure if this is still
> used in bf, but it is surely broken if it is. I ressign this bug and
> asume it will be closed.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
