From: Michele Andreoli ([email protected])
Date: Sun Aug 27 2000 - 22:15:43 CEST
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 03:34:58PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
>
> I would like to do a more generic plip setup. In fact I think the better would
> be to add a method in the network setup, in addition to pcmcia and ethernet. I
> took some of your config and added it to network.fun, and network.cnf.
Hello, Patrice. I used your network.* files. Did you tested your work?
It contains some error. For example: "load_module plip", instead of
"load_module net/plip", etc.
I'm pondering about the better solution: a single network.fun, as you
told, or a lot of plip.fun, eth.fun, etc?
In a very old muLinux version, setup/eth and setup/pcmcia was different
setups, and "netconfig" was named "ethconfig".
Actually, they are joined in setup/network. Instead, the ppp link is
in setup/ppp, with standard Internet PPP.
I'm changing idea! Maybe, a better solution should be a separated setup
like: eth.fun, plip.fun, pcmcia.fun and ppp-link.fun.
A single network.fun is more elegant, but separated setup are more
functional: you can bring up/down any single interface and also
manage a multi-interface environment. A big advantage, because it
open the possibility to develope also a routing.fun, and so on.
The actual setup/network should be renamed as setup/eth and "netconfig"
must manage all common code between various methods/interfaces.
What you think?
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET