Beware: change in configuration file semantics

[Niall O'Reilly]

	David,

	thank you very much for such a thorough explanation.

On 13 Feb 2008, at 16:38, David W. Hankins wrote:

> i have a suspicion that you have found a typo in one of your config
> files, or an extremely odd bug.

	I'ld like to believe the latter, as the _same_ configuration
	file is loaded by dhcpd v3.0.2 as is rejected by dhcpd v3.1.0.

	The configuration is built by a provisioning system which has
	been in use since the v2.x days.  Both instances of the server
	code were built from the corresponding tarball using our SOP,
	which hasn't changed in several years.

	I'ld like to follow up off-list as soon as I've investigated
	in a little more detail.


	Best regards,

	Niall O'Reilly
	University College Dublin IT Services

	PGP key ID: AE995ED9 (see www.pgp.net)
	Fingerprint: 23DC C6DE 8874 2432 2BE0 3905 7987 E48D AE99 5ED9



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/attachments/20080214/a37230e2/attachment.bin>