On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08:49PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 24/11/14 21:41, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > Better than (2) would be to make the existence of /etc/inittab still
> > essential for jessie, by moving the corresponding code from
> > sysvinit-core into the essential init package. What d
Hi Gerrit,
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014, at 12:24, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08:49PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > On 24/11/14 21:41, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > Better than (2) would be to make the existence of /etc/inittab still
> > > essential for jessie, by moving the correspondin
Hi!
On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 14:56:56 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014, at 12:24, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:08:49PM +, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > On 24/11/14 21:41, Gerrit Pape wrote:
> > > > Better than (2) would be to make the existence of /etc/inittab st
Right, damn;).
Guillem, do you generally think that using triggers (by manually adding
activate to sysvinit*) is a good way how to solve this problem?
Ondřej
On December 9, 2014 3:27:36 PM GMT+01:00, Guillem Jover
wrote:
>Hi!
>
>On Tue, 2014-12-09 at 14:56:56 +0100, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>> O
Package: general
Severity: important
I have a NAT-ed network which uses 169.254.1.0/24 range (private/zeroconf
range). The network has dhcp and gateway (169.254.1.1). From some time
(probably few months) Debian Jessie is not able to use the gateway.
It is possible to ping the gateway and other co
1) General is the wrong package for this bug. (i assume it's going to
get closed, network-manager or ifupdown are probably a better idea).
2) Assuming the former is causing the problem (because you have eth0
in /etc/network/interfaces).
FIX 1) Set managed=true in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> I have a NAT-ed network which uses 169.254.1.0/24 range (private/zeroconf
> range). The network has dhcp and gateway (169.254.1.1). From some time
> (probably few months) Debian Jessie is not able to use the gateway.
This was never supposed to work in
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> It is possible to ping the gateway and other computers in 169.254.1.0/24
> network. The packets are not routed by the nat.
link-local addresses, such as 169.254.0.0/16 are "unroutable". No traffic
from/to link-local addresses is allowed to go "throug
Hello, thanks for fast answer and suggestions.
>1) General is the wrong package for this bug. (i assume it's going to
get closed, network-manager or ifupdown are probably a better idea).
I don't know which one and I'm not sure if it is not somethink else. I
haven't found anything like this in b
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 17:13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh pisze:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
It is possible to ping the gateway and other computers in 169.254.1.0/24
network. The packets are not routed by the nat.
link-local addresses, such as 169.254.0.0/16 are "unroutable". No
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Sebastien Badia
* Package name: libipfix
Version : 110209
Upstream Author : Fokus Fraunhofer
* URL : http://www.ip-measurement.org/libipfix
* License : LGPL
Programming Lang: C
Description : C-library implements
Those have been the fixes for the usual networking problems that have
crept up in jessie.
I concur with Henrique Holschuh's advice, fix the address range.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.o
Hi,
as two bugs have been filed against "general" in the last days by users
who were unsure which package to file against, I think it would be great
to have a well-defined process for reporting bugs that cannot be
immediately mapped to a package.
Does it make sense to use "general" for this (as d
On 9 December 2014 at 19:12, Anthony F McInerney wrote:
> Those have been the fixes for the usual networking problems that have
> crept up in jessie.
> I concur with Henrique Holschuh's advice, fix the address range.
>
I think in some environments changing the addressing layout is not that simple
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Simon Richter wrote:
> as two bugs have been filed against "general" in the last days by
> users who were unsure which package to file against, I think it would
> be great to have a well-defined process for reporting bugs that cannot
> be immediately mapped to a package.
https
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014, Maciej Kotliński wrote:
> You don't understand what I mean. The gateway is forwarding packages!
> It is forwarding packages from Windows, Mac, and other Linux boxes
> in 169.254.x.x
The gateway is doing something it was not supposed to do in the first place.
> Debian Jessie b
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Matanya Moses
* Package name: libtree-xpathengine-perl
Version : 0.05
Upstream Author : Michel Rodriguez
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~mirod/Tree-XPathEngine/
* License : Artistic or GPL-1+
Programming Lang: Perl
D
W dniu 09.12.2014 o 19:27, Arturo Borrero Gonzalez pisze:
I think in some environments changing the addressing layout is not that simple.
@Maciej, could you post all the network-related config of your failing
machine? I mean: routing, addresses, firewalling, sysctl, IPv6 and
all.
Also, I see y
Hi,
Please read your previous replies. To repeat:
> 3: eth1: mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state
> UP group default qlen 1000
> link/ether 52:54:00:91:2b:47 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
> inet 169.254.100.244/24 brd 169.254.100.255 scope link dynamic eth1
...
Your message dated Tue, 9 Dec 2014 22:27:18 +0100
with message-id <201412092227.25692.hol...@layer-acht.org>
and subject line not a bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #772650,
regarding general: Debian could not use gateway in 169.254.0.0 ip range
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim
On Ma, 09 dec 14, 10:36:41, Don Armstrong wrote:
>
> I don't particularly mind if we change it to have an "unknown package"
> pseudopackage instead of debian-user, but some list/someone would have
> to be the maintainer, and deal with triaging those bugs.
Ideally that would be debian-user, howeve
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Don Armstrong wrote:
> I don't particularly mind if we change it to have an "unknown package"
> pseudopackage instead of debian-user, but some list/someone would have
> to be the maintainer, and deal with triaging those bugs.
I think it would be best to disable th
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Yaroslav Halchenko
* Package name: jdcal
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : Prasanth Nair
* URL : https://github.com/phn/jdcal
* License : BSD
Programming Lang: Python
Description : Julian dates from proleptic Grego
23 matches
Mail list logo
