[SM-Discuss] SMGL and crisis management - coming out the other side
jack at jbertram.net
jack at jbertram.net
Mon Oct 21 03:56:29 EDT 2002
* nealbirch <nealbirch at attbi.com> [021021 00:38]:
> jack at jbertram.net wrote:
> >Help would certainly help. I didn't understand the paradigm you were
> >using - that there was one file which called a number of "card" files
> >from a different directory. Not sure what the difference between
> >Install and Update is either.
> The cards files are for those who have more than one nic, it's the
> easiest way to make it portable I could find. The Install/update options
> are to take into account initial installation and updating the scripts,
> added cards, new settings or whatever changes are needed. That part was
> the biggest pain in the rear to write, and some of it's only necessary
> for the change from the old method to the new and was probably overkill.
Wasn't complaining about the method you chose, just pointing out that
it's not necessarily obvious to someone who doesn't know how the script
works. You could say up front something like: "We're now going to
configure your networking. This involves installing a base script and
then adding a number of cards to the base script. Choose 'Install' if
you're replacing an old, ad hoc script. Choose 'Upgrade' if you want to
upgrade an earlier version of this script. Choose 'Add' to add a card,
or 'Remove' to remove a card."
> >Didn't know what "Mode" was (turned out
> >to be dynamic/static, but I had no clue). It would be great to have a
> >little more surrounding info to explain how the networking scripts
> >operate, if you see what i mean. The options make perfect sense, but
> >only in context.
> Ok, help with the context if you could. What would be a more
> understandable phrase for this different things? Dialog has a nice help
> feature that I am going to add in as I get the text for it, but I think
> that it's obvious that what is obvious to me may not be so to you, don't
> you think? =)
Absolutely. Well, instead of saying "Mode" (which to me, by the way,
generally means 'promiscuous' or not, you could say "Is your network
card dynamic or static". That, plus the introduction (or similar) I
mentioned earlier, would be fine. Or instead of the intro, add a "Help"
option to the dialog in the first menu which displays that text. A
similar paragraph of help for the very first dialog, when you're
choosing scripts, would be useful too:
"This init.d spell replaces your ad-hoc init scripts with a collection
of init scripts managed by a spell. At present four scripts are
included in the spell, and you can choose each time you cast the spell
which scripts you want included. The spell will back up your old init
scripts before adding its own, and will automatically add links to the
appropriate run levels where they don't already exist."
> >Ooh - something else as well. You assume that every network will have a
> >default gateway set for it. In my home network, my computer dials up
> >ADSL using PPPoA, and so the route is set by ppp automatically. When
> >(if) ADSL is not active, I don't want a gateway set - so you could
> >probably check for $GATEWAY before issuing the route add default gw
> Okay, you leave the GATEWAY option blank and it will check for it after
> the update takes effect. I would have done it already if you had used
> bugzilla, you know... =) matter of fact, could you put that in bugzilla?
Done. Is there a way of submitting bugzilla stuff from the command
line? It's a real pain to have to fire up a web browser.
> >Great job on the init.d spell though - much prefer it to the previous
> >setup. Am feeling a lot happier about the important init scripts now.
> Thanks! Still some work to do. I'm going to put the networking script
> back in net-tools, so things will be a bit more consistant, but it will
> still have the part that lets you update the network cards
Sounds good - just let us all know if we have to change our configs to
get this right...
More information about the SM-Discuss