| 1 |
Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
>> See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options |
| 6 |
>> on stuff. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> No, we won't support that. However, we will bring back ip ranges for the last |
| 9 |
> ocet like so |
| 10 |
> 1.2.3.4-10/24 |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It looks to me as though you are intending to remove the capability to |
| 13 |
set up complex network environments. Granted most people only have |
| 14 |
simple configurations (with single IP address and just a default route), |
| 15 |
but some of us have more complex networking environments with multiple |
| 16 |
addresses, routes and rules on multiple interfaces. Currently Gentoo |
| 17 |
baselayout-1 makes it relatively straightforward to set up these |
| 18 |
configurations, and the current baselayout-2 is almost as simple[1]. I |
| 19 |
think it would be a bad idea to remove any of the network configuration |
| 20 |
functionality currently offered by baselayout-1. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[1] But in my opinion, the baselayout-1 /etc/net.conf syntax is better than that |
| 24 |
in baselayout-2. Though I have not yet migrated any of the systems with |
| 25 |
complex networking to baselayout-2. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives