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@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
