On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:25 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:25:39AM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Pollock >wrote:
> > >
> > > I've actually been poking at this some more, and it turns out I've
> made a
> > > grave error in assuming
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 01:25:39AM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> >
> > I've actually been poking at this some more, and it turns out I've made a
> > grave error in assuming that by not requesting a particular option you
> > don't
> > get it an
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> I've actually been poking at this some more, and it turns out I've made a
> grave error in assuming that by not requesting a particular option you
> don't
> get it anyway.
>
> It turns out in testing, that even not requesting the host-name
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 09:27:12AM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
> Andrew,
>
> Thank you for explaining the policy on your policy being no policy. :p
No worries :-)
> But in all seriousness. I completely forgot about the hooks that can be
> used for DHCP and I entirely agree this makes more sense
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:06:52PM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Andrew,
> >
> > Thanks for the information about how it'll be implemented moving forward.
> > Not to shy too far off-topic, I'm just trying to explain my use cas
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 07:06:52PM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
[snip]
>
> Andrew,
>
> Thanks for the information about how it'll be implemented moving forward.
> Not to shy too far off-topic, I'm just trying to explain my use case for
> this. I work for a pretty well known cloud services provider
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> 4.2.2-2 is going to stop requesting the host-name option by default. I
> don't
> feel that dhclient-script should be making implicit assumptions by looking
> at the state of the system, it should only do what it is explicitly
> configured t
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 03:06:03PM -0500, Tim Heckman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> >
> > dhclient-script got some major overhauling in 4.2.2-1, and your patch is no
> > longer applicable.
> >
> > Is the original bug still present in 4.2.2-1?
> >
> > regards
Hi Andrew,
Sadly I no longer have access to the systems on which this bug manifested.
I can forward this along to some of my old coworkers that do, but no
promises about a response. Thanks for following up,
-ben
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 12:22 AM, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> dhclient-script got some major overhauling in 4.2.2-1, and your patch is no
> longer applicable.
>
> Is the original bug still present in 4.2.2-1?
>
> regards
>
> Andrew
Andrew,
It does appear to work normally in 4.2.2-1 on Sid. Howev
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 06:35:37PM -0400, Tim Heckman wrote:
> User error on my last diff here is an updated one that is correct:
>
dhclient-script got some major overhauling in 4.2.2-1, and your patch is no
longer applicable.
Is the original bug still present in 4.2.2-1?
regards
Andrew
sign
User error on my last diff here is an updated one that is correct:
--- /sbin/dhclient-script 2011-08-09 14:50:08.0 -0400
+++ /sbin/dhclient-script 2011-11-02 16:44:47.0 -0400
@@ -152,9 +152,9 @@
;;
BOUND|RENEW|REBIND|REBOOT)
- if [ -n "$old_host_name" -a -n "$host_na
12 matches
Mail list logo
