W.Kenworthy wrote:
> >From a users point of view - dont do it.
>
> Stay simple and standard (i.e., equal to upstream as per the gentoo
> philosophy).
>
I don't see it:
a) The current ip-up & ip-down scripts are provided by us, not by upstream.
b) If this is going to be implemented, it will be do
W.Kenworthy wrote:
>>From a users point of view - dont do it.
>
Firstly, can I ask you not to top-post? It makes it harder to follow the
flow of conversations.
> Stay simple and standard (i.e., equal to upstream as per the gentoo
> philosophy).
>
It's been years since I worked with a dial-up Linux
>From a users point of view - dont do it.
Stay simple and standard (i.e., equal to upstream as per the gentoo
philosophy).
Its easier for users to understand (and find documentation for) and less
likely to break.
Expert users will make changes anyway and they have the knowledge to do
so - its al
Alin Năstac wrote:
> A gentoo user requested in bug 190143 [1] to change the way pppd deals
> with interface up/down events. He requested to break current
> ip-up/ip-down functionality into different scripts contained in
> /etc/ppp/(ip-up.d,ip-down.d}.
>
> What do you think about? Is it worth it?
Thomas Anderson wrote:
> I do have one question though, how will this affect programs like pppconfig?
> Programs such as these may not look at these scripts and break. Pretty much
> my one worry is about breaking compatibility with other programs in the tree.
>
pppconfig do not care what the
I would say, yes. This is a very important for some dialup users. I personally
ditched the default way on my system because I couldn't do this.
With regard to the concerns leveled at users defining their own scripts, it
shouldn't cause too much trouble as long as the user knows a bit about what
