Re: plip with mulinux

From: Dumas Patrice (
Date: Mon Aug 28 2000 - 12:45:22 CEST

Michele Andreoli a écrit :

> On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 03:34:58PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> >
> > I would like to do a more generic plip setup. In fact I think the better would
> > be to add a method in the network setup, in addition to pcmcia and ethernet. I
> > took some of your config and added it to, and network.cnf.
> Hello, Patrice. I used your network.* files. Did you tested your work?
> It contains some error. For example: "load_module plip", instead of
> "load_module net/plip", etc.

Well, that's because I put plip not in the net directory, but it is a fault. In
fact I shouldn't have send my code, as it is full of bugs. I only wanted to discuss
about the code (like we do !). Hope you didn't waste too much time.

> I'm pondering about the better solution: a single, as you
> told, or a lot of,, etc?
> I'm changing idea! Maybe, a better solution should be a separated setup
> like:,, and
> A single is more elegant, but separated setup are more
> functional: you can bring up/down any single interface and also
> manage a multi-interface environment. A big advantage, because it
> open the possibility to develope also a, and so on.
> The actual setup/network should be renamed as setup/eth and "netconfig"
> must manage all common code between various methods/interfaces.
> What you think?

Well, the problem is that there is some common things between all the networking
stuff, like the definition of the network, the netmask, etc, that could be
different from interface to interface (mainly localized in manual_config()).
I also think like you that it would be better to have separated .fun, but maybe
there could be a sort of "library" for common functions, so that the code isn't
triplicated (or even more...).

What do you think about that ?


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET