| 1 |
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote: |
| 3 |
> > OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so |
| 4 |
> > I'm doing this now. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > For a summary of why we're using hard lines you can read this thread |
| 7 |
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/45756/focus=45765 |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Do you plan to reimplement parsing of the complete ip syntax for |
| 10 |
> addresses and routes? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Not at all. If I did then we're back to using newlines. |
| 13 |
Basically we need something like |
| 14 |
ipaddrs=address1 address2 address3 |
| 15 |
for addresses, and |
| 16 |
routes=dest gateway dest gateway dest gateway |
| 17 |
or |
| 18 |
routes=route1 route2 route3 |
| 19 |
route1=dest gateway |
| 20 |
route2=dest gateway |
| 21 |
route3=dest gateway |
| 22 |
for routes |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
There will be no special ip or ifconfig parsing - it's a pita. especially |
| 25 |
trying to mange 2 variants of linux ifconfig onto iproute2 (and back) and |
| 26 |
trying to get the same style to work with BSD ifconfig. Been there, too much |
| 27 |
pain. So it's the simple route. Want anything more powerful, well we have the |
| 28 |
direct |
| 29 |
ifconfig_eth0= |
| 30 |
ip_eth0= |
| 31 |
directives. And if they don't work then use a pre-up. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options |
| 35 |
> on stuff. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No, we won't support that. However, we will bring back ip ranges for the last |
| 38 |
ocet like so |
| 39 |
1.2.3.4-10/24 |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
After seeing that I take it you'ed vote for the BSD named routing style? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Thanks |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Roy |
| 46 |
-- |
| 47 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives