On 24 June 2016 at 11:43, Antony Antony <[email protected]> wrote: > additional run scripts would be nice to have.
More than just nice. For instance: - west brings up a connection - east triggers a child-sa > Some minor comments about script naming. > I think it would be nicer if the name was <nn>-<host>run.sh > the current scripts are <host>(init|run).sh (eastinit.sh). Having > eastining.sh and run1east.sh could be confusing. > > Also if we do this ideally rename the current (west|road|north)run.sh to > 01-westrun.sh Yes, I think the existing scripts can be renamed safely. Their names do not appear in the output, and that would work. My reason for putting run* first was to accommodate: init.sh -- optional, run across all domains; probably just runs swan-prep runNN<domain>.sh teardown.sh -- replace final.sh, optional run across all domains however, current separation into *init*.sh and *run*.sh is very artificial: - init scripts do stuff that arguably belongs in run - the init script order is always: nic, east, west so might as well spell that out so just <nn>-<domain>.sh or <nn><domain>.sh is sufficient. > I wonder if it is better to add sequnce number as prefix or in the middle. > There are already ideas about having multiple hosts named road1 road2,.. > Where there more hosts, say road1 there will be > 01-road1run.sh or wonder is it better clearly seperate host name. > 01-road1-run.sh _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
