Proposal: ditch pre-made "console" and "network" scripts

Nathan Coulson conathan at gmail.com
Wed Jan 5 16:13:43 PST 2005


On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 23:39:29 +0000 (UTC), Steve Crosby <fost at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban <bryan at kadzban.is-a-geek.net> wrote in
> news:20050105175548.GA22883 at kadzban.is-a-geek.net:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 06:51:18PM +0500, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> >> I admit that forcing the reader to write his own network script
> >> instead of a pre-made one is more educational
> >
> > I don't think I agree with that.  Either way, the user is going to
> > have to know or learn how their local network is set up.  Either way,
> > they're going to have to figure out their DHCP daemon's options (if
> > applicable). Either way, they'll have to set up PPPoE (if applicable).
> >  The only thing that forcing them to write an entire script is going
> > to teach, is how to write an entire script.  Which they should know
> > already, at least with
> 
> <snip>
> 
> agreed - the LFS network bootscripts should provide a configuration that
> supports static IP addresses, and the user can extend them as required.
> Thats said, I'm not adverse to having the LFS network bootscripts be
> extensible to support methods other than static (which they are now).
> Perhaps a README in the sysconfig\network-devices directory explaining
> how the bootscripts operate (logically) would be sufficient.

actually, there is a README file provided with the lfs-bootscripts
that deals with configuration.

> - --
> Steve Crosby
> --


-- 
Nathan Coulson (conathan)
------
nathan at linuxfromscratch org
conathan at gmail com



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list