1.1

OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so I'm 
doing this now.

For a summary of why we're using hard lines you can read this thread
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/45756/focus=45765

Basically, just using whitespace to seperate configs is nice and simple.
What's more is everyone understands it. With CIDR notation, this is possible.
For routes, it's a little more tricky as there are two values in use.

config_eth0=("1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0"
"5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0" )
routes_eth0=("1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6"
"5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10"
"default gw 1.2.3.1")

becomes

config_eth0="1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0
5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0"
routes_eth0="1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6
5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10
default gw 1.2.3.1"

becomes

address_eth0="1.2.3.4/24 5.6.7.8/16"
routes_eth0="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.8 5.6.7.10 default 1.2.3.1"

Or we could adopt the BSD routing notation and do this
routes_eth0="route_foo route_bar"
route_foo="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 metric 5"
route_bar="default 1.2.3.1"

Yes, I've used the same "routes_eth0" variable, but we can change it's syntax 
based on the existance of address_eth0/config_eth0.

So what are peoples feelings on this? Are you happy with the names?
address_eth0?
addr_eth0?
addresses_eth0?
ipaddress_eth0?
ipaddr_eth0?
ipaddresses_ath0?
routes_eth0?
static_routes_eth0?

Speak up, or I'll make a decision by myself which will probably be done over 
the weekend.

Thanks

Roy
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list