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

Re: ifupdown-extra upload to stable-proposed-updates

On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 23:25 +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> I would like to make an upload to stable in order to fix some bugs in
> ifupdown-extra which were not detected and fixed in time for the Squeeze
> release. 
> Please find attached the full patch between this new package version and the
> version 0.14 currently in Squeeze with my proposed changes. A summary of them 
> is:
>  - fixed location of the ethtool binary which changed in the ethtool package
>    from lenny to squeeze
>  - fix the location of the default configuration file for routes to match
>    were the scripts look for it
>  - fix parsing errors in the configuration file 

Thanks for working on this.  I have a couple of (hopefully) quick
queries on the diff.

The last of the changes in the list above has this changelog entry
associated with it:

+  * if-up-scripts/static-routes: 
+      - Fix typo that prevent the script from adding routes as it expected them
+        to have 'reject' when they shouldn't. Thanks to Mathieu Parent and
+        to Petru Ratiu for the patches. (Closes: #613632, #458395) (LP: #631533)

but actually appears to both fix a bug (the inverted sense of the
"reject" test) and introduce new functionality relative to the current
version in stable, namely the adding of routes which _do_ have "reject"
associated with them.  Is that correct?

The second query is more of a comment really.  I appreciate that this
isn't a regression from the previous matching code, but it seems to me
that this:

 add_static_routes() {
-       cat $ROUTEFILE | egrep "${IFACE}$" | 
+       cat $ROUTEFILE | egrep "^[^#].*${IFACE}$" | 

will match a line of "foo bareth0" in the route file where $IFACE
contains "eth0".  I'm not sure if this is an issue in practical use of
the package though.



Reply to: