On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 15:52 +0200, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
>
> Do you think so? I believe that it is better readable
I've programmed I don't want to think how many thousands or tens of
thousands of lines of shell script, so I think I'm pretty familiar with
readability and lining up = signs doesn't
* Florian Fainelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17.05.2008 18:40]:
> This awk call calculates the half of the available RAM to later allow
> base-files setting up a tmpfs of exactly of this size.
wouldt it be better (for understanding) to do something like:
-
while read NUL MEM NUL; do
this is a bit more, integrating fallback for
ifconfig AND route...this script needs some rewrite,
because it was and is ugly in some sections
bye, Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: package/base-files/files/usr/share/udhcpc/default.script
==
missspelled something. string must be "PREFIX" not only "PRE"
bye, Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: package/base-files/files/etc/preinit
===
--- package/base-files/files/etc/preinit(Revision 11157)
+++ package/base-files/fi
another base-file:
Index: package/base-files/files/sbin/ifdown
===
--- package/base-files/files/sbin/ifdown(Revision 11157)
+++ package/base-files/files/sbin/ifdown(Arbeitskopie)
@@ -59,6 +59,11 @@
[ ."$device" != ."$
Hi Bastian,
Le Saturday 17 May 2008 18:00:13 Bastian Bittorf, vous avez écrit :
> first base-file which now can work with ip and ifconfig
> some cleanups for better reading. can anyone explain,
> what the "size"-awk thing makes really?
This awk call calculates the half of the available RAM to lat
first base-file which now can work with ip and ifconfig
some cleanups for better reading. can anyone explain,
what the "size"-awk thing makes really?
bye, Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Index: package/base-files/files/etc/preinit
===
--
because i hate to look into source just
to guess the cmdline-params...
bye, Bastian
Index: package/base-files/files/bin/ipcalc.sh
===
--- package/base-files/files/bin/ipcalc.sh (Revision 11157)
+++ package/base-files/files/bin/i
* Ondrej Zajicek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17.05.2008 15:45]:
> You can use "broadcast +" to let program compute proper broadcast address.
ok, will do so...
> > + ip link set dev $DEVICE arp on
>
> This is unnecessry, isn't it?
Maybe, but it doesn hurt. See the examples at:
http://www.p
* Peter Denison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17.05.2008 15:00]:
> I would far rather see 'ip' tried first, and then fall back to ifconfig
> (which is almost guaranteed to be present) than the other way round.
Ofcourse this is my goal, but let it us do slow and safe I think...
bye, Bastian.
signature
* Brian J. Murrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [17.05.2008 15:45]:
> > + local BROADCAST="192.168.1.255" # maybe calculate from
> > IP/NETMASK?
> > + local NETMASK="255.255.255.0"
> > + local CIDR_MASK="24"# which must be NETMASK in
> > other notation (maybe calculate
On Sat, 2008-05-17 at 14:32 +0200, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> hello hackers,
>
> here are some patches to let the user decide
> wether to use "ifconfig/route..." or the nice
> command "ip", which is much more cleaner IMHO.
Cool.
> This is not complete yet, but let me first know, if
> the used fall
On Sat, 17 May 2008, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> here are some patches to let the user decide
> wether to use "ifconfig/route..." or the nice
> command "ip", which is much more cleaner IMHO.
>
> This is not complete yet, but let me first know, if
> the used fallback-method or "elegant" or if I have
>
On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 02:32:25PM +0200, Bastian Bittorf wrote:
> + ip addr add dev $DEVICE $IP/$CIDR_MASK broadcast $BROADCAST
You can use "broadcast +" to let program compute proper broadcast address.
> + ip link set dev $DEVICE arp on
This is unnecessry, isn't it?
hello hackers,
here are some patches to let the user decide
wether to use "ifconfig/route..." or the nice
command "ip", which is much more cleaner IMHO.
This is not complete yet, but let me first know, if
the used fallback-method or "elegant" or if I have
to rewrite the code.
Bastian Bittorf <[E
15 matches
Mail list logo
