On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > I'll see what I can do about injecting it in.
>
> Isn't it on some public mailing list archive?
The -bugs lists don't appear to have archives.
> > Basically, don't hold your breath.
>
> > I'm not over the moon about the Ubuntu patch, but I guess if push
>
> 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
particularly like having magical strings that are interpretted differently
to literal strings. 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 suggest you lobby upstream to implement the functionality, as I have been.
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 07:14:49PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > I'll see what I can do about injecting it in.
>
> Isn't it on some public mailing list archive?
The -bugs lists don't appear to have archives.
> > Basically, don't hold your breath.
>
> > I'm not over the moon about the Ubuntu patch, but I guess if push
>
> 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
particularly like having magical strings that are interpretted differently
to literal strings. 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 suggest you lobby upstream to implement the functionality, as I have been.
http:// marc.info/ ?l=dhcp- users&m= 120027890132057 &w=4
regards
Andrew