On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 12:44:31AM +0200, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote:
>
>
> On 9/3/20 10:29 PM, Pierre Labastie via blfs-dev wrote:
> > On Thu, 2020-09-03 at 21:47 +0200, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote:
> > >
> > > On 9/1/20 7:55 PM, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > > On 9/1/20 12:24 PM, Tim Tassonis via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > > > Hi all
> > > > >
> > > > > As one of Switzerland largest ISP's requires pppoe with vlan
> > > > > tagging
> > > > > for fiber connections, I wondered if vlan tagging could get
> > > > > supported
> > > > > in the network scripts.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I found out via https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/VLAN, one
> > > > > can
> > > > > create a tagged VLAN using
> > > > >
> > > > > ip link add link $REAL_IFACE name $VLAN_IFACE type vlan id
> > > > > $VLAN_ID
> > > > >
> > > > > , so I guess this could be implemented by
> > > > >
> > > > > - checking for $VLAN_IFACE and $VLAN_ID being set
> > > > > - checking for $VLAN_ID and $REAL_IFACE (in which case IFACE
> > > > > then
> > > > > holds the $VLAN_IFACE)
> > > > >
> > > > > The latter would probably be more consistent with other network
> > > > > stuff,
> > > > > where iface always holds the resulting interface, and not the
> > > > > physical
> > > > > one.
> > > > >
> > > > > I could add this to /lib/services/pppoe, if anyone else cares.
> > > > > I'm not
> > > > > sure if, apart from pppoe, anyone else is interested in vlan
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > > I'm not even sure /lib/services/pppoe is still in blfs....
> > > > >
> > > > > If yes, I could also add this to ipv4-static and dhcpcd.
> > > >
> > > > Tim, Can you send me a patch that I can review? I would want to
> > > > make
> > > > sure that changes will not affect users that do not need them.
> > >
> > > The patch against the pppoe service file I got is as follows:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- pppoe-service 2018-04-18 19:18:07.739547066 +0200
> > > +++ pppoe-service-vlan 2020-09-03 21:37:27.613134901 +0200
> > > @@ -46,11 +46,24 @@
> > > exit 1
> > > fi
> > >
> > > +if [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ] && [ "x$x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ]
> >
> > I'm not sure what you want to do above: if the first test is true, the
> > second is true too, whatever the value of $x. Typo?
>
> Correct, "x$x${REAL_IFACE}" is a typo, it should read:
>
> if [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ] && [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ]
>
> Like this, it is a very portable way to check if both of those variables
> have any defined value. But there may be a bash shortcut, maybe:
>
Maybe I'm missing something (very possible), but you seem to be
testing the same variable twice:
if [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ] && [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ]
reformatted to put the two parts on separate lines:
if [ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ] &&
[ "x${REAL_IFACE}" != "x" ]
Looking at your original posting, I think one of these should maybe
be ${IFACE} ? It seems that if REAL_IFACE is set then an extra
module should be modprobed before pppoe is modprobed.
> if [ -s "${REAL_IFACE}" ] && [ -s "x${REAL_IFACE}" ]
>
>
> I'm not sure, though, if that would also be correct. The first one will
> certainly work with any possible sh-like shell.
>
Portability is good, particularly for something which most of us
cannot test.
ĸen
--
I could not live without Champagne. In victory I deserve it, in
defeat I need it. -- Churchill
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
