[SM-Discuss] bug? iptables, ifupdown
flux
flux at sourcemage.org
Thu Mar 5 22:10:05 EST 2009
Eric Sandall (eric at sandall.us) wrote [09.03.05 14:41]:
> > I just found out that the line could be correct since we have a dhcp
> > 3.x in our grimoire. The line for dhclient3 is correct except it expects
> > binary name to be dhclient3.
> >
> > Okay, but i still have to ask: What to do? Upgrade dhcp?
>
> Is there an upstream bug to have this fixed? If not, we could patch
> iptables to work with dhclient3, unless a newer version already has
> this.
>
> -sandalle
Eric: By "patch iptables" I hope you meant "patch ifupdown" ;-)
Robert: I'm confused as to what specifically expects the binary to be
named dhclient3: dhcp, or ifupdown? It seems that it should be dhcp,
since the line in ifupdown calls "dhclient".
--
Justin "flux_control" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 489 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/sm-discuss/attachments/20090305/4f1af7c9/attachment.bin
More information about the SM-Discuss
mailing list