On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 09:37:01PM +0000, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > Hi, > On Tue, 07 Nov 2006@ 9:19 +0100, Christian Fischer wrote: > > On Monday 06 November 2006 21:49, Waldemar Brodkorb wrote: > > [...] > > > > I've done some ifupdown hook script changes and additions. > > > > Please tell me what you think about it and whether it makes sense to do > > > > additional work on it or not. > > > > > > Yeah, sure. > > [...] > > > Sorry, for the late response. I would like to see a clean patch for > > > trunk, so that we can try it out. > > > > > > bye > > > Waldemar > > > > Hi Waldemar, > > > > thanks for your response, I really thought that you think this is a kind > > of "humbug" ;-) > > > > The whole thing is in beta state and has some bugs. I must review the code, > > then I'll send you the source. > > > > As first I've tried to get it working without any ifupdown patches, no way > > on > > some points. > > I've implemented some workarounds for missing patches, the idea was that the > > patches aren't mandantory. > > > > The result is that i [EMAIL PROTECTED] around the workarounds. I prefer a > > clean > > straight forward code. > > > > What do you think about ifupdown patches to enhance the hook script > > environment to get a clean solution? > > Depends on the size and complexity of the patches and if you could > feed them upstream. I care about maintainence, every external patch > make maintainance more complex. > > Looking forward to see some of the code.
I've got the code from Waldemar. The code is quite complex. One interesting point is the dependency checker, I found a ISDEPEND is the sources, but no example and no doc. Can you explain it, Christian? Dirk _______________________________________________ freewrt-developers mailing list [email protected] https://www.freewrt.org/lists/listinfo/freewrt-developers
