Wireless update to ifup and network-functions

Jon Nettleton jon.nettleton at gmail.com
Fri Sep 17 13:58:59 UTC 2004


I think the overall intention here is to have ifup/ifdown remain the
main command interface for controlling network interfaces.  Breaking
out the functionality of different types of networking interfaces is
more for readability and maintenance.  Right now if you are trying to
debug ifup or make any changes you need to wade through a lot of
varying checks that may not even apply to the type of interface you
are dealing with.

I have no intention of trying to introduce any changes of how the
system interacts with the ifup/ifdown commands.  I am more interested
in adding some functionality to them, and hopefully making networking
a little more flexible to deal with the demands of  mobile computing.

-Jon


On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 09:25:40 -0400, Chuck Mead <csm at redhat.com> wrote:
> Charles Lopes wrote:
> 
> > David Woodhouse wrote:
> >
> >> That's nice. I assume it selects the appropriate key based on the ESSID
> >> it finds?
> >> A while ago I sent patches to Bill (and/or put them in Bugzilla) which
> >> added Bluetooth networking support. I moved the tail end of ifup into
> >> ifup-eth, then added an 'ifup-wireless' which calls that, as does
> >> ifup-bnep. We no longer have to have the wireless (or bluetooth) stuff
> >> hacked in to the middle of ifup that way.
> >>
> >>
> > Splitting out ethernet stuff to ifup-eth sounds like a good idea IMHO.
> > I'm trying to add support for WAN cards (only using the generic hdlc
> > stack and sethdlc at the moment) and I was considering doing the same.
> > The ethernet code is already framed by a "if" statement anyway,
> > splitting it out would just improve readability and consistancy of the
> > ifup/down scripts.
> >
> Doubtless this has already been thought of and discarded but I just
> wanted to make the comment that there may be lots of stuff on peoples
> machines that depends on ifup. I know I have written scripts and lots of
> other stuff over the years that used this script. So if we're going to
> make changes to support wireless better then why not leave ifup alone
> and call the wireless script "wifup"?
> 
> --
> Chuck Mead <csm at redhat.com>
> Instructor II (and resident Postfix bigot), GLS
> Disclaimer: "It's Thursday and my name is Locutus of B0rk!"
> Addendum: "Bwahahaha! Fire up the orbital mind-control lasers!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list