Public SourceMage Discussion List

[nealbirch <nealbirch AT attbi.com>]

jack AT jbertram.net wrote:
> * nealbirch <nealbirch AT attbi.com> [021021 09:59]:
>
> > jack AT jbertram.net wrote:
> >
> > > 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". 
> >
> > hee... haven't heard the term "promiscuous" in this sense in a while... 
> > how old are you?
>
> Not _that_ old... is there another (more modern) word for promiscuous
> mode on a network card?

Damned if I know what I was thinking about promiscuous, lol, maybe it 
was some old sailor thing. Being as I am an old sailor...

The reason the questions are so terse is the way I have the script built 
to ask them. And the term MODE came from where ever I ripped off the 
idea for the nic files.

The code is in this format:

for info in MODULE MODE IP BROADCAST NETMASK GATEWAY; do
        "What does the ethernet card use for $info?"
        copy input to ethernet card file.
done

using dialog to ask the question.What I am doing during the move back to 
net-tools is adding a explanitory text before the question, like so:

for info in MODULE MODE IP BROADCAST NETMASK GATEWAY; do
        display text (hopefully) explaining what $info is;
        "What does the ethernet card $nicfile use for $info?"
        copy input to ethernet card file.
done

so far, the MODE help text reads as so:
"The next question asks what MODE your network card uses. If you use 
dhcp answer dynamic, otherwise answer static. Please use lower case.

Is it dynamic or is it static?"

unless you have better ideas? Heck I need text for all of them, feel 
free to send me ideas, everyone!

> > ok, great... Do you want to help writing the documentation in your spare 
> > time? You do it well. And we need someone who writes clearly to do it.
>
>
> Spare time?  If I had spare time I wouldn't be fixing my computer at
> 2am.  And flattery will get you nowhere.  I guess I could help with
> writing documentation, but frankly I don't have enough knowledge of how
> all the scripts work to write it from scratch, and I don't have enough
> time to pore through and work them out.  I'd be quite happy to act as
> editor-and-polisher as long as I can do it all from my email client.

Polish away, then! It was worth a shot. I don't have enough knowledge 
either, btw, but I have picked up a lot doing this project.


> > > Sounds good - just let us all know if we have to change our configs to
> > > get this right...
> >
> > Shouldn't have to unless I misunderstand what you mean or I really screw 
> > it up; I do need to know if it's buggy though. I think that the only 
> > thing that will happen is the spell init.d won't have it as a component 
> > and net-tools will check for the version of the script before changing 
> > anything, and since it's going to be the same script or a newer one, it 
> > shouldn't make any unwanted changes.
>
>
> Sounds fine.  So - the nettools spell will be updated, update itself in
> a future sorcery update, and everything will keep on working.

I'm going to be making the init.d spell a depends for the spells I 
modify to use the functions and submit the changes for net-tools and 
init.d within minutes of each other so it gets in the same day/time. 
Hopefully that will prevent major problems, just pass responsibility for 
the script from init.d to net-tools

> > In addition, I have implemented a new option in the lib_runlevel script 
> > that checks for custom scripts, if the sysadmin has had the forsight to 
> > add one commented line to set SGL-script-version=custom.
>
> Why not add a README file to your init.d spell which gets copied to
> /etc/init.d and tells the sysadmin about these options?

What, comments in the code isn't enough?

neal

--
"You can fool some of the people all of the time
--and those are the ones you have to concentrate on!"
GW Bush-- from the N.Y. Times