| 1 |
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 23:01:38 Graham Murray wrote: |
| 2 |
> Roy Marples <roy@×××××××.name> writes: |
| 3 |
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options |
| 5 |
> >> on stuff. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > No, we won't support that. However, we will bring back ip ranges for the |
| 8 |
> > last ocet like so |
| 9 |
> > 1.2.3.4-10/24 |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> It looks to me as though you are intending to remove the capability to |
| 12 |
> set up complex network environments. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No I'm not. |
| 15 |
I'm making it easy for simple configs AND complex ones. Just not through the |
| 16 |
same variable. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> [1] But in my opinion, the baselayout-1 /etc/net.conf syntax is better than |
| 19 |
> that in baselayout-2. Though I have not yet migrated any of the systems |
| 20 |
> with complex networking to baselayout-2. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Sadly, default scripts we ship have to work with shells other than bash. |
| 23 |
Of course, you're still welcome to use config_eth0 as a bash array as that |
| 24 |
still works and will for the foreseeable future. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Thanks |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Roy |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives