On 8/16/07, Ben Ragg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hostgroup a > foo > ...having a look through the code, there seems to be an evil bit of > logic that will attempt to disable the hostgroup rather than the host > when ever the host exists in a hostgroup by itself. What's worse is it > appears it'll only attempt to disable the first hostgroup, ie in the > above example hostgroup a.
Forgive my ignorance, I haven't had my morning coffee yet, but what's the problem? -- Augie Schwer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://schwer.us Key fingerprint = 9815 AE19 AFD1 1FE7 5DEE 2AC3 CB99 2784 27B0 C072 _______________________________________________ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
