1 |
On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 16:36 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
2 |
> Well, several services already have a "basic" setup using named vars, |
3 |
> then something like Richard's suggested Options_eth0= as a (normally |
4 |
> commented) catch-all for anything advanced that the admin wishes to pass |
5 |
> "raw". IMO the standard network stuff is well defined enough for that, |
6 |
> perhaps with a couple of mode-toggles and/or counters thrown in. (A |
7 |
> counter like eth0_number_IPs= could default to one, for instance, but set |
8 |
> to something higher and with the appropriate number of address_N_eth0= |
9 |
> lines, it'd then cover your 5-address example, without having to worry |
10 |
> about figuring out how many there are, since it's a given.) |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I think that's what many of us would like and what this subthread is |
13 |
> asking for, truth be told, but I also realize it's going to be more work |
14 |
> setting it up -- but OTOH should be simpler for the user to setup so |
15 |
> perhaps less bugs to deal with and the documentation in the net sample |
16 |
> file should be somewhat simpler as well. The more work thing is why I've |
17 |
> not requested it before, but it'd be nice, and with others mentioning it |
18 |
> now too, now's the time to speak up if I'm going to. =8^) |
19 |
|
20 |
Fair enough, but one of the goals of baselayout-2 is to support |
21 |
baselayout-1 configs where possible if the shell is still bash. |
22 |
|
23 |
I'm striving to support similar configs for non bash shells so that |
24 |
there's not much of a learning curve. |
25 |
|
26 |
Yes we could have a totally new non compatible setup, but that would |
27 |
really suck hard for upgraders yes? |
28 |
|
29 |
Thanks |
30 |
|
31 |
Roy |
32 |
|
33 |
-- |
34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |