Re: network configuration
On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 08:39:30PM +0000, Christian Hammers wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 1999 at 08:06:56AM -0600, Richard Kaszeta wrote:
> > Samuel Tardieu writes ("Re: network configuration"):
> > >| IMHO no end user should fiddle around with /etc/rc*. Why is there no
> > >| /etc/network.conf or similar.
> > In contrast, on most of my non-linux boxes, I just edit /etc/sys_id
> > and make sure the host is in /etc/hosts.
> > (Not that I am complaining that much, the debian network config is
> > infinitely cleaner than redhat's)
> Then who is the one who has the power to change it =;-)
you. anyone has the power to change it. all it takes is to write the
code to implement it.
then submit it to the netbase maintainer. if it meets his approval, then
the problem is solved.
if it doesn't meet his approval, then make a separate package which
diverts /etc/init.d/netbase and other scripts as required.
> Or is there really anybody who has something against a config file
> /etc/network.conf that looks like the following and gets parsed by
> /etc/init.d/netbase or netstd_init or whatever.
no, it's just that there hasn't been anyone who is really in favour of
the idea who has the time or inclination to actually do the work rather
than just prescribing what other people SHOULD do.
> # remember to change also /etc/resolv.conf /etc/hosts /etc/hostname
> MODULE=somewhat irq=2
> Wouldn't that be better ?
not exactly that, but a system conf file (similar to /etc/hostconfig on
nextstep or /etc/sysconfig on freebsd - or some mechanism which achieved
the same end) would be good.
this (and many similar ideas) has been proposed numerous times over the
proposal+code == good.
proposal without code == useless.
> BTW: Which programs really need /etc/gateways ? It is created by
> netbase and looks if it was a config file... but for whom ?
it's for routed. most people don't need it.
see 'man gateways' for details.