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

Re: Bug#224742: Related to this issue...



On Sun, Dec 28, 2003 at 04:04:00PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 13:32:21 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> >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.
> They do a considerably better job in being readable for a human.

Which is an aesthetic consideration, not a technical one. And no offense, but
I disagree.

> >>  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.
> /e/n/i does a pretty good job of being a central place for
> network-interface-related configuration data.

Why, you'd almost think there weren't any technical barriers to it's use
as such.

> >> 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."
> Gee. How nice it is to work with Philip Hazel.

I take it he's the sort of guy that doesn't invite himself into
conversations just to tell people how annoying they are to talk to?

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: pgpYByzyYrtWf.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: