"David Schwartz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Danny Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > We cannot be responsible for what Redhat or any other vendor does with the
> > code.
>
> That is true, but RedHat had to do something to fix the problem.
> However, changing the behavior of a flag to its opposite was probably a bad
> choice. Changing the default and adding a new flag to get the default back
> would have been better.
AIUI it was the reference implementation that inverted -L, it was not
a RedHat tweak. Your comments on the advisability of such a change
might still apply.
--
Ronan Flood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
working for but not speaking for
Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
(which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
