On Thursday 18 January 2007 10:33, Eddy Petrișor wrote: > > db_input high ppp/username || true > > -db_go || true > > +db_go || exit 30 > > What is the difference induced by return code 30? Will it make the > installation fail if ran non-interactively and this data is not > provided? > > (I don't seem to be able to find again the codes and their meaning for > main-menu, although I found it in the past.) With "true" you are saying: just continue whatever the user does, which is broken. The || exit 30 should make the script exit to the main menu if the user selects the <GoBack> button, but will leave ppp marked as unconfigured. It would be better to have a state engine in the script that goes back to a previous question, but that is something for post-Etch. > > +# PPPoE connection > > +auto provider > > +iface provider inet ppp > > + pre-up /sbin/ifconfig $ETH up Hmm. This should be $IFACE, not $ETH. Please fix that. > (Just checking) > In order for this to work, the interface name should be preserved. This > happens, AFAIK, even for interfaces which are not configured, right? I'm not completely sure. If I understand you correctly, preserving the name is something that is done by udev and I'm not sure if that covers your use case too. Marco can probably tell you. > Why change the name of the script in the source package _and_ the name > in the d-i environment? Wouldn't it make more sense to rename it > directly in the source? (I suggest 30ppp-udeb-config.) This would also > save some source code reader (later) the trouble to understand where > did the config-target-ppp file went. Because it is somewhat more flexible this way. Not including the number in the source file means it is easier to change the number if needed. You can still see what went where by grepping in the source for whatever current name. However, it all makes no real difference. The name "30ppp" is most consistent with other scripts already in post-base-installer.d. IMO the layout in the source file (dumping everything in the "extra" directory) is not really the clearest solution... > Not sure if copying the whole /etc/ppp/peers/ directory isn't a better > idea (in the style of what is done with the configuration files from Why? What other files are there that need to be copied? > d-i). Having that in mind, aren't the configuration files already > copied in the target *with* the correct permissions when this script is > ran? No. The ppp dir is copied nowhere else and copying this way _only_ works because the files pap/chap-secrets and peers/provider already exist in _/target_ because the ppp deb installs default files there that already have the correct permissions. The provider file in the d-i environment does not have the correct premissions (wrong group).
Description: PGP signature