From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnout Vandecappelle Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 18:12:15 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v2] set simple network setup via the system configuration submenu In-Reply-To: <20141021103611.7e43d2b4@free-electrons.com> References: <1413814486-10716-1-git-send-email-jeremy.rosen@openwide.fr> <20141021103611.7e43d2b4@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <5447D75F.90800@mind.be> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 21/10/14 10:36, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > 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. Personally I think that the network interfaces is at least as relevant as the getty, hostname, timezone, default shell, and other system configuration. Similar to the getty configuration, it's good to have something that gives you a working system with a simple config without having to create custom files. And at least for the network interface, the simple configuration will often be sufficient. getty on the other hand becomes irrelevant when you create a custom inittab (i.e. always for a real product). So I'm definitely in favour of having something like this. On condition that it is sufficiently simple, and doesn't attempt to cover all cases. Regards, Arnout -- Arnout Vandecappelle arnout at mind be Senior Embedded Software Architect +32-16-286500 Essensium/Mind http://www.mind.be G.Geenslaan 9, 3001 Leuven, Belgium BE 872 984 063 RPR Leuven LinkedIn profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/arnoutvandecappelle GPG fingerprint: 7CB5 E4CC 6C2E EFD4 6E3D A754 F963 ECAB 2450 2F1F