Your message dated Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:17:38 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#301999: fixed in dnsmasq 2.22-1
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 29 Mar 2005 15:26:09 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Mar 29 07:26:08 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mxfep02.bredband.com [195.54.107.73] 
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DGIbY-0007HH-00; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:26:08 -0800
Received: from donkey ([82.183.212.37] [82.183.212.37])
          by mxfep02.bredband.com with ESMTP
          id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
          Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:25:36 +0200
Received: from yann by donkey with local (Exim 4.50)
        id 1DGIb2-0007zG-1o; Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:25:36 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Yann Vernier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: dnsmasq insists client is first one in /etc/ethers with read-ethers
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.9
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 17:25:35 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: dnsmasq
Version: 2.21-1
Severity: normal

When I have read-ethers on, dnsmasq keeps registering an otherwise
unknown dhcp client as the first one I have in /etc/ethers. This occurs
even though that client sends another hostname, and whether or not the
name in /etc/ethers is also listed in /etc/hosts. Currently working
around by not reading ethers, but this was one of the features that made
me choose dnsmasq in the first place. The MAC address registered in the
lease is that of the dhcp client, not the one listed in ethers, but
the name was taken from ethers.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-k7
Locale: LANG=sv_SE, LC_CTYPE=sv_SE (charmap=ISO-8859-15)

Versions of packages dnsmasq depends on:
ii  libc6                       2.3.2.ds1-20 GNU C Library: Shared libraries an
ii  netbase                     4.21         Basic TCP/IP networking system

-- no debconf information

---------------------------------------
Received: (at 301999-close) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Mar 2005 17:24:17 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Mar 31 09:24:16 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
        by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DH3Oy-0000OI-00; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:24:16 -0800
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
        id 1DH3IY-000077-00; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:17:38 -0500
From: Simon Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.55 $
Subject: Bug#301999: fixed in dnsmasq 2.22-1
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Archive Administrator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:17:38 -0500
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
        (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
        autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 

Source: dnsmasq
Source-Version: 2.22-1

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
dnsmasq, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

dnsmasq_2.22-1.diff.gz
  to pool/main/d/dnsmasq/dnsmasq_2.22-1.diff.gz
dnsmasq_2.22-1.dsc
  to pool/main/d/dnsmasq/dnsmasq_2.22-1.dsc
dnsmasq_2.22-1_i386.deb
  to pool/main/d/dnsmasq/dnsmasq_2.22-1_i386.deb
dnsmasq_2.22.orig.tar.gz
  to pool/main/d/dnsmasq/dnsmasq_2.22.orig.tar.gz



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Simon Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (supplier of updated dnsmasq package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Thur, 24 Mar 2005 17:10:13 +0000
Source: dnsmasq
Binary: dnsmasq
Architecture: source i386
Version: 2.22-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Simon Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Changed-By: Simon Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 dnsmasq    - A small caching DNS proxy and DHCP server.
Closes: 301999
Changes: 
 dnsmasq (2.22-1) unstable; urgency=low
 .
    * New upstream.
    * Fixed broken-ness when read /etc/ethers. (closes: #301999)
Files: 
 3ee594000f2c1a4e61ebac0e453b15be 527 net optional dnsmasq_2.22-1.dsc
 f300c0af36d02d04c9917a445b1ea36f 145376 net optional dnsmasq_2.22.orig.tar.gz
 779cb11b9bcc6471d90ff2f72b78bf41 9956 net optional dnsmasq_2.22-1.diff.gz
 422f72349b33a7b7703731a926e85284 111652 net optional dnsmasq_2.22-1_i386.deb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCTBMlwEl0z99oB74RAl+nAJ9Rg5B0+Twwt3aWGm5E+pt/NXZKTACgqAQI
aTxn/rHHDkwgT5GKMyYiAIQ=
=eN6u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to