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

Uploaded isdnutils 3.0-14 (alpha) to master



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Format: 1.6
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 17:03:42 +0200
Source: isdnutils
Binary: isdnutils
Architecture: alpha
Version: 1:3.0-14
Distribution: stable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Paul Slootman <paul@debian.org>
Description: 
 isdnutils  - ISDN utilities
Closes: 35363 42613 42644 42947 43261 43381
Changes: 
 isdnutils (1:3.0-14) stable; urgency=low
 .
   * fix a couple of problems when going to FHS (/usr/doc, /usr/man,
     /usr/lib/isdn) => (/usr/share/doc, /usr/share/man, /usr/share/isdn)
     Should now conform to standards version 3.0.1.
   * Add 'netmask 0' to 'route * default' commands, that is needed on 2.2.x
     kernels, and doesn't do any harm on 2.0.x kernels. closes:#35363
   * Don't require /etc/ppp/ioptions to exist i.e. comply to the documentation.
     closes:#42613
   * "nohostroute" is now (again!) a synonym for "-hostroute" as an ipppd option.
     closes:#42644
   * Include /var/lib/isdn/ as a directory in the package, so that the calls can
     be logged there by isdnlog. closes:#42947
   * Ensured that the example device configuration script included the ${device}
     parameter to all route commands. Note that existing scripts may need to be
     fixed manually! closes:#43261
   * Renamed /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/isdnutils to /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/00-isdnutils so that
     it is run as (almost?) the first script. /etc/ppp/ip-down.d/isdnutils
     similarly renamed to /etc/ppp/ip-down.d/99-isdnutils for symmetry, although
     that is not as important as the 'up' script. preinst asks what to do about
     this (renaming conffiles sucks).  closes:#43381
Files: 
 d3042e3b05095e27a1d64ac73c4617dc 1427056 net extra isdnutils_3.0-14_alpha.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv

iQBVAwUBOB3hFuh8ldIZdihVAQHdIQH+Mv2NmEczN1i4vrbDKQQAvmFrmfcTcZrr
gCAwgD2VbWNLfZ0P4iS19G3OWIeFP2E8Xv5g483Y1t1zpg/BkvVCkA==
=3N49
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: