On Sun, 2003-06-29 at 22:58, Iain Buchanan wrote: > On Mon, 2003-06-30 at 12:07, Tom Diehl wrote: > > On 30 Jun 2003, Iain Buchanan wrote: > [snip] > > why were they in three different places? I found the same routes in > > > different formats in > > > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0, > > > /etc/sysconfig/static-routes, and > > > /etc/networking/devices/eth0.route > > > > > > at least I know for next time... > > > > Congrats!! Now the real question is have you found a bug in > > redhat-config-network?? I would like to know why you had to go looking for > > the routes in the first place? Isn't the magic network config tool supposed > > to do that for you?? > > So I thought, but it didn't. This is the psyche version > (redhat-config-packages-1.1.20-1), I don't know if its the same as > shrike. The program in question is redhat-config-network, not redhat-config-packages. You should definitely upgrade to the shrike version, redhat-config-network-1.2.0-2 . It fixes a large number of bugs in the psyche version, which didn't work about 90% of the time in my experience. Why would you be running the RHL 8.0 version of redhat-config-network on RHL 9 anyway? I mean, maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems that it's fairly presumptious to mix and match configuration software like this (old r-c-network, new OS) and expect it to work. Can you explain? --Jeremy -- /=====================================================================\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp@xxxxxxxxx trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \=====================================================================/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
