· Thomas T. Veldhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> Actually, I find it quite clear. The documentation states what needs to be
>> done and it states, what the commands return. It seems, that you've used
>> the wrong command.
>>
>>
> Following all instructions results in the c
· [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Yes, please do. In a simple case of a home network with static IPs
> and a router to internet. Where is one expected to set domainname.
You're expected to do that in /etc/conf.d/net. See net.example, section
"System".
Please say what you tried and wha
On Sunday 17 September 2006 09:21, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
> > > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
> >
> > True. And that's probably why you don't
· Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
>> But I agree, it makes no sense to even be able to set this per
>> interface.
>
> I can think of a couple of uses for this.
>
> A laptop with wired and wireless interfaces. wired is only used on t
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:50:28 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> > It makes very little sense to ditch the unix norm of setting a
> > systemwide domain name in favor of doing it per interface!
>
> True. And that's probably why you don't *have* to set it per interface.
Exactly, the current system
· Thomas T. Veldhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> How is it that the baselayout has changed and now the domainname script
> is missing from /etc/init.d and all sorts of other ramifications because
> of this?
"this" == you, not configuring the system?
> It makes very little sense to ditch the unix n
6 matches
Mail list logo
