[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian netbase 3.17-1 init.d scripts



On Tue, Feb 22, 2000 at 10:57:57PM +0100, Stefan Gybas wrote:
> Jeff Sheinberg wrote:
> > Make that 3 places - I now need to muck with network/interfaces
> > also!  And I just tried dpkg-reconfigure netbase - how come I
> > didn't get asked any questions about my interfaces?
> 
> The basic network interface configuration is done by the boot floppies
> so it is already there on a newly installed system. Package configuration
> using an interactive postinst or debconf is only there for a basic
> configuration and not a complete setup so why should it be done in
> netbase?

Oh. Joey "Just in case you don't already have enough to do" Hess filed
a wishlist bug [0] against netbase a little while ago, that suggested having
an `auto configurator' sort of thing that'd read the output of `ifconfig'
and magically generate the right sort of stuff for /e/n/interfaces.

And because I didn't already have enough to do, I came up with a first
hash at a perl script to do this. It's not quite complete: it doesn't
cope with adding a default gateway, and it doesn't calculate the network,
but it's not bad as a proof of concept.

Anyway, my question is, what should I do about this? I'm inclined to think
going to the lengths Joey suggests (automagically working out what the
user wants, adding it to /e/n/interfaces, and stripping whatever s/he
used to have out of /etc/init.d/network) is just asking for heartache,
but it also seems like it might be a useful sort of thing. And at least
in the *common* case, it's probably doable, it's just not generalisable.

Maybe putting the script in doc/netbase/examples or similar would be the
way to go? Or maybe having a debconf question that first checks that
init.d/network looks fairly simple, and asks `want it automagically
converted?'? Or is the whole idea pointless, and it'd be easier for a
user to just configure /e/n/interfaces anyway, than to find the script
and run it? Would it still be useful for linuxconf or similar, perhaps?

Any thoughts? (Or additions to the script? :)

Cheers,
aj

[0] http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/57/57830.html

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpYS7RKzQwpq.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: