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