| 1 |
OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so I'm |
| 2 |
doing this now. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
For a summary of why we're using hard lines you can read this thread |
| 5 |
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/45756/focus=45765 |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
Basically, just using whitespace to seperate configs is nice and simple. |
| 8 |
What's more is everyone understands it. With CIDR notation, this is possible. |
| 9 |
For routes, it's a little more tricky as there are two values in use. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
config_eth0=("1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0" |
| 12 |
"5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0" ) |
| 13 |
routes_eth0=("1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6" |
| 14 |
"5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10" |
| 15 |
"default gw 1.2.3.1") |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
becomes |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
config_eth0="1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 |
| 20 |
5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0" |
| 21 |
routes_eth0="1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6 |
| 22 |
5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10 |
| 23 |
default gw 1.2.3.1" |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
becomes |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
address_eth0="1.2.3.4/24 5.6.7.8/16" |
| 28 |
routes_eth0="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.8 5.6.7.10 default 1.2.3.1" |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Or we could adopt the BSD routing notation and do this |
| 31 |
routes_eth0="route_foo route_bar" |
| 32 |
route_foo="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 metric 5" |
| 33 |
route_bar="default 1.2.3.1" |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Yes, I've used the same "routes_eth0" variable, but we can change it's syntax |
| 36 |
based on the existance of address_eth0/config_eth0. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
So what are peoples feelings on this? Are you happy with the names? |
| 39 |
address_eth0? |
| 40 |
addr_eth0? |
| 41 |
addresses_eth0? |
| 42 |
ipaddress_eth0? |
| 43 |
ipaddr_eth0? |
| 44 |
ipaddresses_ath0? |
| 45 |
routes_eth0? |
| 46 |
static_routes_eth0? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Speak up, or I'll make a decision by myself which will probably be done over |
| 49 |
the weekend. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
Thanks |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Roy |
| 54 |
-- |
| 55 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives