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 s
On Wed, 2008-04-23 at 16:21 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> address_eth0?
> addresses_eth0?
I think one of these two is the most obvious to people. Since most
people will likely only have one address per interface, I'd say that
"address_eth0" sounds good.
--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering St
Roy Marples wrote:
> 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"
If one choose to separate by lines, will tabs or spaces be allowed in
subsequent lines? Like:
config_
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 19:46:35 Joe Peterson wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > 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"
>
> If one choose to separate by lin
Roy Marples wrote:
> The point is to remove the hard newline, which you've kept in your examples.
Roy, yes, I realized that after I emailed - at first I thought it was
remaining as an option. :)
-Joe
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Samuli Suominen wrote:
# Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21 Apr 2008)
# Masked by treecleaners for bug 160267. Removed in ~60 days.
# Has been included in 2.6 kernel series.
net-fs/coda-kernel
Are you sure? codafs has been in the kernel for years but I think the
external package is someth
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> 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=45
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > 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 thre
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options
>> on stuff.
>
> No, we won't support that. However, we will bring back ip ranges for the last
> ocet like so
> 1.2.3.4-
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:38PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:27PM +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> > > OK, it seems that hard lines in multipart configs seem to be an issue, so
> > > I'm doing this now.
> > >
ext Daniel Drake schrieb:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
# Samuli Suominen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21 Apr 2008)
# Masked by treecleaners for bug 160267. Removed in ~60 days.
# Has been included in 2.6 kernel series.
net-fs/coda-kernel
Are you sure? codafs has been in the kernel for years but I think the
On Thursday 24 April 2008 00:01:01 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The problem in this is that you cannot set the properties for each
> address or route. Please don't take us back to the stoneage of writing
> the advanced networking configuration manually.
>
> As an example of an ip address line with pro
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 23:01:38 Graham Murray wrote:
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2008 21:46:18 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> >> See my attached example from work, we use a lot of the various options
> >> on stuff.
> >
> > No, we won't support that. However, w
13 matches
Mail list logo
