Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:15:13 +0200 From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> To: Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ifconfig_IF_aliasX regression Message-ID: <20091001091513.11182ihiv60y2qyo@webmail.leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <4AC36719.3010607@FreeBSD.org> References: <20090930135327.83446wivezjxxlc8@webmail.leidinger.net> <4AC36719.3010607@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoting Alex Dupre <ale@FreeBSD.org> (from Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:11:37 +0200): > Alexander Leidinger ha scritto: >> I know the setup should have been the second one from the beginning (at >> least the manpage gives something like this as an example), but the >> first one worked without problems. The problem is either that it >> (silently?) fails, or that it is not documented in UPDATING. Anyone with >> their hands there recently with an opinion about it? > > The change is recent, to unificate ipv4 and ipv6 rc code. We have > ipv4_addrs_IF that uses the former syntax, but why not ipv6_addrs_IF, too? Is this a question to me? I already expected that this is some regression because of the IPv6 changes, but still: intended or not? If yes -> missing UPDATING entry. Bye, Alexander. -- I saw a subliminal advertising executive, but only for a second. -- Steven Wright http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7 http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20091001091513.11182ihiv60y2qyo>