Andrew Pollock wrote:
>> What's 'wrong' with it?
>
> As I've said previously, I'd rather not make the downstream DHCP package
> deviate significantly in behaviour from the upstream software. I don't
Ah, I thought you didn't like the patch itself either.
> particularly like having magical strings that are interpretted differently
> to literal strings.
Good point.
> I'd rather see it be a directive than a magical string
> that gets special treatment. According to upstream, their config parser
> can't cope with that concept though.
>
>> And what are other distributions doing?
>
> Not sure, I haven't looked. Why don't you and let me know?
I will.
Apparently Fedora is using a command line option (-H).
I don't think that's a good idea though. The conf file is the proper place.
Andrew Pollock wrote:
>> What's 'wrong' with it?
>
> As I've said previously, I'd rather not make the downstream DHCP package
> deviate significantly in behaviour from the upstream software. I don't
Ah, I thought you didn't like the patch itself either.
> particularly like having magical strings that are interpretted differently
> to literal strings.
Good point.
> I'd rather see it be a directive than a magical string
> that gets special treatment. According to upstream, their config parser
> can't cope with that concept though.
>
>> And what are other distributions doing?
>
> Not sure, I haven't looked. Why don't you and let me know?
I will.
Apparently Fedora is using a command line option (-H).
I don't think that's a good idea though. The conf file is the proper place.
> I suggest you lobby upstream to implement the functionality, as I have been. marc.info/ ?l=dhcp- users&m= 120027890132057 &w=4
>
> http://
I will.
Greetings,
Olaf