Re: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/conf.d/net

2006-08-22 Thread Alan McKinnon
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 10:13 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Don't feel bad Alan - for me, also this is very unclear. I upgraded > baselayout > then got the message my conf.d/net was using deprecated syntax so I went to > net.example, copied it to net which is symlinked to net.eth0 (after backi

Re: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/conf.d/net

2006-08-21 Thread brettholcomb
ces between the old and new or what the new is supposed to do better is very unclear. > > From: Alan Mckinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/08/21 Mon AM 09:43:17 EDT > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/conf.d/net > > On Mon,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /etc/conf.d/net

2006-08-21 Thread Alan Mckinnon
On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 10:05 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: > ยท Alan Mckinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Docs on /etc/conf.d/net are about as clear as mud from where I sit. The > > last thing I need to figure out is what exactly is the difference > > between config_eth0 and iface_eth0 entries? > > Oh