From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yann E. MORIN Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 20:00:14 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] set simple network setup via the system configuration submenu In-Reply-To: <1111084647.26814618.1413881401004.JavaMail.root@openwide.fr> References: <20141021103611.7e43d2b4@free-electrons.com> <1111084647.26814618.1413881401004.JavaMail.root@openwide.fr> Message-ID: <20141021180014.GE30778@free.fr> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Jeremy, All, On 2014-10-21 10:50 +0200, Jeremy Rosen spake thusly: > [] > > I certainly don't like to push back stuff, but I'm wondering if this > > isn't too much complexity compared to just having people use an > > overlay > > containing their own /etc/network/interfaces. We will never be able > > to > > handle all the possible cases, with multiple network interfaces, hook > > scripts called before/after bringing up/down interfaces, etc. > > > > What is the opinion of other Buildroot developers? > > just to clarify... > > the point of the patch is not to allow all possible configurations that > network/interfaces can handle, but just allow to easily set an IP address > or enable DHCP without having to add an overlay. For anything more > complex an overlay is the way to go. > > I originally thought that putting more stuff in would be a good > idea but I have revised my position on that and now I think it > should be limited to the minimal required subset > > * static ipv4 > * ipv4 dhcp > * networkd support > > if ipv6 becomes popular enough it could trivially be added but > let's keep this for a followup I've meant to review this earlier, but then I always backed off because I'm not too happy with this kind of stuff, without being able to pinpoint the exact underlying reason. Call it gut feelings if you want... Although I like it when we present user-friendly configuration options, and this certainly is to some extent, I worry about the option-creep we are going to have with this kind of options. I too am also responsible for this option-creep, so I'm noone to really blame any one trying for such a change... ;-) Still, I would like to see where we going with that kind of setup, and how far we should go (or rather, where we should stop). Certainly, this IPv4-only options are not too intrusive, yet they only cover a basic setup. Now, for some actual, high-level review (mostly about cosmetics): - multiple spearation lines, or spaces; this breaks the current flow of the "code", and is not in-line with the rest of the file. Please use only one line to separate /sections/, and do not double spaces, especially in the help texts. - I would make all into a single choice, with three entries: - don't generate network settings - use DHCP - use static - Also, we already have a /etc/network/interfaces file in the skeleton, with lo in it; I'd prefer you keep it that way, and not generate the lo entry, and just append the 'eth0' entry. Regards, Yann E. MORIN. -- .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------. | Yann E. MORIN | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: | | +33 662 376 056 | Software Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN | ___ | | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------: X AGAINST | \e/ There is no | | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL | v conspiracy. | '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'