[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