Your message dated Sun, 03 Mar 2013 22:26:44 +0000 with message-id <1362349604.11072.56.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> and subject line Re: Bug#696671: tpu: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u3 has caused the Debian Bug report #696671, regarding tpu: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u3 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 this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 696671: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=696671 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: tpu: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u3
- From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:11:22 -0500
- Message-id: <CANTw=MPB5aQFL__8f28DWfv=avtBnyKMVf=m4eBrLYEg+anN-Q@mail.gmail.com>
Package: release.debian.org User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org Usertags: tpu Severity: normal I plan to upload a tpu for isc-dhcp fixing two important issues. One fixes an unclean error situation, and the other sets up the default dhclient configuration to work in ipv6-only configurations. The first change is less important, so I can drop it if needed. Please review the proposed patch attached. Thanks, MikeAttachment: isc-dhcp.patch
Description: Binary data
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Cyril Brulebois <kibi@debian.org>
- Cc: Michael Gilbert <michael.s.gilbert@gmail.com>, 696671-done@bugs.debian.org
- Subject: Re: Bug#696671: tpu: isc-dhcp/4.2.2.dfsg.1-5+deb70u3
- From: "Adam D. Barratt" <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>
- Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 22:26:44 +0000
- Message-id: <1362349604.11072.56.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20130303222225.GB22537@mraw.org>
- References: <CANTw=MPB5aQFL__8f28DWfv=avtBnyKMVf=m4eBrLYEg+anN-Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121225210146.GY5634@radis.cristau.org> <CANTw=MN9sbcMkj2QX5kjx+GCacytD23DPzHtY42Efrsb4-8eGg@mail.gmail.com> <20130119124658.GA14500@spike.0x539.de> <CANTw=MPR3PoXqW4M1-KpU87xUgr3EUQVKdCQ+6TejAN2u6xn6g@mail.gmail.com> <CANTw=MPTC-8i1N3hv5TbBOV1HL2_k0vLeGGkpDZuRPZbC+mATg@mail.gmail.com> <CANTw=MPhbxK0=XsDWO_ozryMSbbS4UHWMYvm5FDePT1wJHaOiw@mail.gmail.com> <20130217135030.GA7850@spike.0x539.de> <CANTw=MP96aOu1rtUdiVM2CjbfiJJ+G_z5DQFPSzgFCJ+FTZ9LQ@mail.gmail.com> <1362083074.32751.8.camel@jacala.jungle.funky-badger.org> <[🔎] 20130303222225.GB22537@mraw.org>
On Sun, 2013-03-03 at 23:22 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk> (28/02/2013): > > Unblocked, but needs a d-i ack. > > AFAICT netcfg is the only consumer on the d-i side, on non-Linux ports > only. isc-dhcp-client-udeb doesn't come with dhcp hooks anyway, and a > better upgrade handling shouldn't hurt anything in d-i; I don't think > there's any objection to unblocking it. Thanks; unblock-udebbed. Regards, Adam
--- End Message ---