intrigeri wrote (07 Jan 2014 22:18:28 GMT) :
>> It should be noted that I haven't yet verified that any of the below
>> solutions work. I've built some squeeze debs with the solution below and
>> will try it one of these days.
> Cool. ETA?
Oops, I realized (too late) that this question of mine was
considerably off-topic, since we had previously agreed not to consider
this problem as a blocker for the first iteration. Sorry.
My question rather is: given the patch against Squeeze's and Wheezy's
NM is a one-liner, assuming it is trivial to test if it works, do we
want it in the first iteration of the MAC spoofing feature (that is,
in 0.23), or do we think it makes more sense to spend time documenting
the limitation of our solution? Both suit me very well.
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
