On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 03:41:11PM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> >> The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
> >> 0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
> >> are again working in the
On Jun 26, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Sergey Matveychuk wrote:
I agree. Two ports are overkill for only TCPMD5 option. And it
should not be a show stopper for the port update.
Should not be, but is. If you can convince Boris to update the port
without having a working MD5 patch then my reasoning be
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thing to do, as the TCP MD5 che
Wesley Shields wrote:
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thi
On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 08:38:00AM -0700, Jo Rhett wrote:
> The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
> 0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
> are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
> thing to do, as the
The current maintainer has indicated that he is holding up the quagga
0.99.10 port until an unknown time when the TCP MD5 checksum patches
are again working in the tree. I don't think that this is the right
thing to do, as the TCP MD5 checksums are not necessary for the vast
majority of in
