[Bug 175689] Re: Share Folder in right-click menu does not share ntfs drive folders

2008-04-06 Thread Waldecir Loureiro dos Santos Filho
I Confirm, i have attached some screens of error. log: drwxrwx--- 1 root plugdev 20480 2008-03-31 08:23 sda1 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/media$ mount /dev/sda1 on /media/sda1 type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,noatime,allow_other,default_permissions,blksize=4096) ** Attachment added: Screens

[Bug 35265] Re: more debug for DHCP client

2008-04-06 Thread Martin Pitt
dhcp3 (3.0.6.dfsg-1ubuntu9) hardy; urgency=low * Add debian/patches/dhclient-more-debug.dpatch: Show the requested/offered client IP in log output, for better debugging. Thanks to Peter Miller for the patch! (Closes: #35265) -- Martin Pitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed, 02 Apr 2008

[Bug 81242] Re: postfix-ldap is linked against gnuTLS

2008-04-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
So we have openldap 2.4 in Hardy. Can this get fixed now? Is it already? -- postfix-ldap is linked against gnuTLS https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/81242 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to postfix in ubuntu. --

Re: [Bug 211915] Re: Insecure dependency when using sql for Log Reporting

2008-04-06 Thread Adam Sommer
Do you have a further explanation? That's great news! My thought is, and I'm far from an expert, amavisd-new didn't know what host to accept mail for. Did you try amavisd-new without using a database to store the messages? Either way it's great that it's working now :-). -- Party On, Adam

Re: [Bug 211915] Re: Insecure dependency when using sql for Log Reporting

2008-04-06 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Monday 07 April 2008 00:13:32 Adam Sommer wrote: Do you have a further explanation? That's great news! My thought is, and I'm far from an expert, amavisd-new didn't know what host to accept mail for. Did you try amavisd-new without using a database to store the messages? There are open

Re: [Bug 202508] Re: ssh -X no longer works

2008-04-06 Thread Dustin Kirkland
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:13 AM, kmon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't understand why sshd complains about: Bind to port 2 on 0.0.0.0 failed: Address already in use. (in the sshd output) See Bug #129789. This error can be due to ssh binding to the same port on both ipv6 and ipv4. If