Re: [LONG] ppp-udeb: A succesful installation using it, some ideas and some requests for advices

["Eddy Petrişor" <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com>]

On 5/16/06, Eddy Petrişor <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/16/06, Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> wrote:
> > On May 16, Eddy Petri??or <eddy.petrisor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The case of "ethernet interface needs to be up without an IP address"
> > must be handled by the code which currently configures ethernet
> > interfaces (if you can persuade the maintainers).
>
> This is where I disagree, because I think there is no reason and no
> means for the previous steps to allow such a configuration (iirc,
> "leave network interface unconfigured" will just do that, no up, no
> IP), so I guess is the ppp-udeb's duty to do the up, if it needs it
> for PPPoE. Probably is not the best design, from your POV, but I don't
> think that the modular architecture of d-i will enforce this.

It is still unclear to me if an error should be displayed if the
ppp-udeb postinst will not detect _any_ concentrators, thus failing to
configure PPPoE. This should be always done if ppp-udeb is an opt-in
component (i.e. must be loaded as an additional component);

BUT if the ppp-udeb is integrated in the main d-i (better for
beginners who expect PPPoE to work out of the box), for many systems
there will not be a PPPoE connection, so what should be done in this
case? Silently fail? Frans, Marco?

--
Regards,
EddyP
=============================================
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein