> On Sep 3, 2022, at 7:30 PM, Kevin Price wrote:
>
> Am 03.09.22 um 06:32 schrieb Casey Deccio:
>>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 8:14 PM, Kevin Price wrote
>
>>> We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay?
>
>> Done! https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018999
>> Thanks for
Am 03.09.22 um 06:32 schrieb Casey Deccio:
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 8:14 PM, Kevin Price wrote
>> We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay?
> Done! https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018999
> Thanks for all the help!
You are very welcome.
Thanks a lot for this
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 8:14 PM, Kevin Price wrote:
>
> Am 03.09.22 um 02:15 schrieb Kevin Price:
>> Let's double check whether our connman is in fact the culprit, and then
>> make arrest. (file bug report)
>
> We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay?
Done!
Am 03.09.22 um 02:15 schrieb Kevin Price:
> Let's double check whether our connman is in fact the culprit, and then
> make arrest. (file bug report)
We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay?
Blank debian,
apt --no-install-recommends install connman
will break "disable_ipv6" as you
Am 02.09.22 um 22:03 schrieb Casey Deccio:
> Then I ran tasksel and add Debian desktop environment and LXDE and rebooted.
> At that point, disable_ipv6 does *not* work.
>
> Now, this does seem to narrow it down--sort of.
It does. And *now* I can reproduce.
task-lxde-desktop requires lxde,
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 1:05 PM, Kevin Price wrote:
>
> I suspect your "very little customization" (since you're doing
> networking stuff) or the "VBox Guest Additions" (since they mess with
> network interfaces). In order to test this, I used
> debian-11.3.0-amd64-netinst.iso from the archive to
Am 02.09.22 um 15:46 schrieb Casey Deccio:
>> On Sep 2, 2022, at 2:51 AM, Kevin Price wrote:
> Thanks for the idea. I took your advice and booted my 5.10.0-17 system
> (problem system) with 5.10.0-13. The problem persisted! Then I updated my
> "old" (non-problem) system from Debian 11.3 to
> On Sep 2, 2022, at 2:51 AM, Kevin Price wrote:
>
> Am 02.09.22 um 06:33 schrieb Casey Deccio:
>> 1) a sanity check (can others confirm the behavior discrepancy?);
>
> No. My 5.10.0-17 behaves like your 5.10.0-13.
Thanks so much for checking!
> 2) an expectation of *correct* behavior
Am 02.09.22 um 06:33 schrieb Casey Deccio:
> 1) a sanity check (can others confirm the behavior discrepancy?);
No. My 5.10.0-17 behaves like your 5.10.0-13.
2) an expectation of *correct* behavior (seems to me like the 5.10.0-13
behavior is "correct");
Yes.
and 3) suggestions for next steps.
> On Sep 1, 2022, at 10:33 PM, Casey Deccio wrote:
>
> I've come across some unexpected changes in interface behavior between
> linux-image-5.10.0-13-amd64 and linux-image-5.10.0-17-amd64.
>
Relatedly, there is this behavior change:
linux-image-5.10.0-13-amd64:
$ sudo ip link add test1
I've come across some unexpected changes in interface behavior between
linux-image-5.10.0-13-amd64 and linux-image-5.10.0-17-amd64.
Consider the following script:
$ cat test.sh
#!/bin/sh
sudo ip link add test1 type veth peer test2
sudo ip link set test1 down
sudo ip link set test2 down
sudo
11 matches
Mail list logo
