Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)

To: Andrew McMillan <Andrew@catalyst.net.nz>
Cc: 67481@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
From: Turbo Fredriksson <turbo@debian.org>
Date: 20 Jul 2000 13:34:58 +0200
Message-id: <[🔎] 87vgy1ghlp.fsf@papadoc.bayour.com>
In-reply-to: Andrew McMillan's message of "Thu, 20 Jul 2000 21:07:50 +1200"
References: <[🔎] 200007200753.e6K7rXA16532@linda.lfix.co.uk> <[🔎] 3976C166.B2197591@catalyst.net.nz>

Quoting Andrew McMillan <Andrew@catalyst.net.nz>:

> This could also clean up stuff like 'ipmasq' having to echo
> >/proc/sys/... as well of course.
> 
> Now, if only I could get through New Maintainer I could even build such
> a beast :-)

'Build it and it will be uploaded'... :)

I bet someone are willing to sponsor this package if you do it througfully
enough!
-- 
747 North Korea Soviet fissionable Ft. Meade Kennedy Saddam Hussein
Mossad Honduras subway Rule Psix NORAD arrangements Serbian NSA

Reply to:

References:
- Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
  - From: "Oliver Elphick" <olly@lfix.co.uk>
- Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
  - From: Andrew McMillan <Andrew@catalyst.net.nz>

Prev by Date: Re: removing duplicate posts
Next by Date: Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
Previous by thread: Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
Next by thread: Re: Bug#67481: Should a package increase a kernel parameter? (Re: Bug#67481)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread