Hi,
intrigeri wrote (07 Jan 2014 22:23:05 GMT) :
> 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.
I'm not sure if we have decided something on this topic yet.
anonym?
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
| GnuPG key @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/intrigeri.asc
| OTR fingerprint @ https://gaffer.ptitcanardnoir.org/intrigeri/otr.asc
