Roy Marples wrote: > config_eth0="1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 > 5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0" > routes_eth0="1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6 > 5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10 > default gw 1.2.3.1"
If one choose to separate by lines, will tabs or spaces be allowed in subsequent lines? Like: config_eth0="1.2.3.4 netmask 255.255.255.0 5.6.7.8 netmask 255.255.0.0" routes_eth0="1.2.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.9 gw 5.6.7.10 default gw 1.2.3.1" I think this *greatly* improves readability. Also, the example file should probably indent for clarity (I know I've talked with you about this before...). > address_eth0="1.2.3.4/24 5.6.7.8/16" > routes_eth0="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 5.6.7.8 5.6.7.10 default 1.2.3.1" That's a little confusing, i.e. not being able to see easily where the pairs are separated. What about adopting commas and keeping "gw" and "netmask" (if not CIDR), like: address_eth0="1.2.3.4/24, 5.6.7.8/16" routes_eth0="1.2.4.0/24 gw 1.2.3.6, 5.6.7.8 gw 5.6.7.10, default gw 1.2.3.1" > Or we could adopt the BSD routing notation and do this > routes_eth0="route_foo route_bar" > route_foo="1.2.4.0/24 1.2.3.6 metric 5" > route_bar="default 1.2.3.1" Hmm, that might be good as an option, as long as the other way is available too, but I'd keep "gw", etc., perhaps. > Yes, I've used the same "routes_eth0" variable, but we can change it's syntax > based on the existance of address_eth0/config_eth0. > > So what are peoples feelings on this? Are you happy with the names? > address_eth0? > addr_eth0? > addresses_eth0? > ipaddress_eth0? > ipaddr_eth0? > ipaddresses_ath0? > routes_eth0? > static_routes_eth0? > > Speak up, or I'll make a decision by myself which will probably be done over > the weekend. I like "ipaddr_eth0" or "ip_eth0", myself. -Joe -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list