All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one interface
for some reason, this
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
interface for some reason, this is not doable in that setup. I agree
this is a
On Monday, September 20, 2010 13:21:25 Michał Górny wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500 William Hubbs wrote:
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to cycle one
interface for some reason, this is not doable
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
Use oldnet. Why?
1. We already have a migration guide setup for it:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:52:23AM -0700, Joshua Saddler wrote:
On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:16:08 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is centering
on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
Use
William Hubbs dixit (2010-09-20, 11:16):
I want to start a new thread since the discussion on openrc is
centering on whether we should use oldnet, newnet, or keep both.
The drawback I see for newnet is that it does not allow the user to
control each interface separately, so if you want to
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 08:18:32PM +0200, Antoni Grzymala wrote:
Does that support configurations where I set static addresses
(including ipv6) and routes (also including ipv6) based on the SSID as
is allowed by the oldnet scheme of things? I (and probably lots other
???power users???) rely on
