On Sat, Dec 27, 2003 at 09:43:27AM +0100, Enrico Zini wrote: > There are IMHO. To resume them: > 1) Parameterless lines can be useful when a parameter made no sense Parameterless lines do *nothing* more than a line with a dummy parameter in this case. > 2) I added that I would like ifupdown to stop enforcing not to have > repeated lines, with an example of when such a case would be useful That's equally well done by having the parameters on the same line; ie test foo bar versus test foo test bar It's also equally well done by having differently named parameters: test1 foo test2 bar > 3) I repeatedly asked for technical reasons why you didn't want to > change ifupdown accordingly, and I was ready to discuss them, and > maybe accept them, but you never provided any That's a complaint, not a technical reason for something to happen. The difference should be pretty obvious. > 4) I showed you examples of other programs accessing > /etc/network/interfaces and proposed considering a wider role for it No changes to the file are necessary for that to happen; and more importantly the file belongs to ifupdown, and if other programs wish to use it, they get to follow ifupdown's rules. If you want a configuration file that works differently, you get to create one of your own. > I would have handled it differently, having received more cooperation > from you. Ah, yes, of course it's all my fault. Not a thing you could have done differently considering the horrible things that have been done to you. Perhaps you need some grief counselling? > For the records, a proposed way to handle this could be: "Ask for the feature. Get told how to do it differently. Do it differently." Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Linux.conf.au 2004 -- Because we can. http://conf.linux.org.au/ -- Jan 12-17, 2004
Attachment:
pgphj6OLO620K.pgp
Description: PGP signature