Il giorno mer, 09-02-2005 alle 20:58 +0100, Oliver Siegmar ha scritto:
> It is a brand new sarge installation - I haven't tweaked anything.=20
> So...everyone will get this error in the first place if he/she doesn't=20
> configure anything manually, right?
>=20
> At least the installation script should perform a 'hostname -f' or someth=
ing=20
> to avoid this kind of errors and to enable visible_hostname by itself.
What would you suggest it'd be a reasonable value for visible_hostname
if there's no FQDN set?
grave
makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
accounts of users who use the package.
=20
Do you see this bug makeing the package unusable or causing data loss or
introducing a security hole?
--=-tbP7HWrKoj8GwJNyQpJ5
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E8?= firmata
Message-Id: <1107980963. 6157.6. camel@willis>
Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:29:22 +0100
From: Luigi Gangitano <email address hidden>
To: Oliver Siegmar <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#294431: Installation error on machines lacking a FQDN
--=-tbP7HWrKoj8 GwJNyQpJ5 Transfer- Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-
Il giorno mer, 09-02-2005 alle 20:58 +0100, Oliver Siegmar ha scritto:
> It is a brand new sarge installation - I haven't tweaked anything.=20
> So...everyone will get this error in the first place if he/she doesn't=20
> configure anything manually, right?
>=20
> At least the installation script should perform a 'hostname -f' or someth=
ing=20
> to avoid this kind of errors and to enable visible_hostname by itself.
What would you suggest it'd be a reasonable value for visible_hostname
if there's no FQDN set?
> So I think it is a grave bug.
=46rom rom http:// www.debian. org/Bugs/ Developer. en.html
grave
makes the package in question unusable or mostly so, or causes
data loss, or introduces a security hole allowing access to the
accounts of users who use the package.
=20
Do you see this bug makeing the package unusable or causing data loss or
introducing a security hole?
Regards,
--=20
Luigi Gangitano -- <email address hidden> -- <email address hidden>
GPG: 1024D/924C0C26: 12F8 9C03 89D3 DB4A 9972 C24A F19B A618 924C 0C26
--=-tbP7HWrKoj8 GwJNyQpJ5 pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Description: Questa parte del messaggio =?ISO-8859- 1?Q?=E8? = firmata
Content-Type: application/
Content-
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
mGJJMDCYRAo63AJ 9UHazLB9QyriYLI kGantppOzFCJACf Tahm 1YjdhCdG2sCsEYw =
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBCCnKi8Zu
7ysYAcF+
=6Rla
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-tbP7HWrKoj8 GwJNyQpJ5- -