[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#57372: marked as done (DHCP/BOOTP config fails with pump client error)



Your message dated 15 Mar 2000 03:04:14 -0500
with message-id <oa3dpsfym9.fsf@arroz.fake>
and subject line bugs fixed in previous upload
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.)

Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 8 Feb 2000 18:32:33 +0000
Received: (qmail 18403 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2000 18:32:33 -0000
Received: from qicstart.phx.mcd.mot.com (HELO borg.phx.mcd.mot.com) (144.191.26.9)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 8 Feb 2000 18:32:33 -0000
Received: from beef.phx.mcd.mot.com (beef.phx.mcd.mot.com [144.191.11.56])
	by borg.phx.mcd.mot.com (8.8.5/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA81068;
	Tue, 8 Feb 2000 11:32:30 -0700
Received: from mporter by beef.phx.mcd.mot.com with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
	id 12IFR8-0000sO-00; Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:32:30 -0700
From: mporter <mporter@borg.phx.mcd.mot.com>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: DHCP/BOOTP config fails with pump client error
X-Reportbug-Version: 0.48
X-Mailer: reportbug 0.48
Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 11:32:30 -0700
Message-Id: <E12IFR8-0000sO-00@beef.phx.mcd.mot.com>

Package: boot-floppies
Version: current CVS; reported 2000-02-08
Severity: normal

When selecting the automatic configuration via DHCP/BOOTP I get a fast
error message that it failed and this message in /var/log/messages:

	Feb  8 11:55:16 (none) user.err pump: bind to /var/run/pump.sock failed:
	No such file or directory

No pump.sock Unix socket exists in /var/run/

-- System Information
Debian Release: potato
Architecture: powerpc
Kernel: Linux beef 2.2.12 #1 Tue Jun 15 21:54:15 MST 1999 ppc

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 57372-done) by bugs.debian.org; 15 Mar 2000 07:22:16 +0000
Received: (qmail 4963 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2000 07:22:14 -0000
Received: from 216-164-253-50.s50.tnt6.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.com (HELO arroz.fake) (@216.164.253.50)
  by master.debian.org with SMTP; 15 Mar 2000 07:22:14 -0000
Received: by arroz.fake (Postfix, from userid 421)
	id E39DF93858; Wed, 15 Mar 2000 03:04:14 -0500 (EST)
Sender: apharris@arroz.fake
To: 36412-done@bugs.debian.org, 38144-done@bugs.debian.org,
	48637-done@bugs.debian.org, 50014-done@bugs.debian.org,
	53113-done@bugs.debian.org, 54130-done@bugs.debian.org,
	56600-done@bugs.debian.org, 56960-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57094-done@bugs.debian.org, 57110-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57114-done@bugs.debian.org, 57119-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57344-done@bugs.debian.org, 57364-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57366-done@bugs.debian.org, 57372-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57672-done@bugs.debian.org, 57736-done@bugs.debian.org,
	57738-done@bugs.debian.org, 57783-done@bugs.debian.org,
	58006-done@bugs.debian.org, 58009-done@bugs.debian.org,
	58387-done@bugs.debian.org, 59156-done@bugs.debian.org,
	59187-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: bugs fixed in previous upload
From: Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com>
Date: 15 Mar 2000 03:04:14 -0500
Message-ID: <oa3dpsfym9.fsf@arroz.fake>
Lines: 11
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii


We believe the bug you reported has been fixed as of the Potato boot flopppies,
version 2.2.8.  Please let us know if not.

Remember that often bugs are filed against boot-floppies, when the should
be filed against modconf, base-config, kernel-image-2.2.14, or other
related packages.  Please do you best to track down which package is the 
culprit when creating bugs.

-- 
.....Adam Di Carlo....adam@onShore.com.....<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>


Reply to: