On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 01:03:44PM +0200, Robin Martinjak wrote:
> > > > $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static
> > > > DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static
> > > > DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0
> > > > :: ethernet-moheim-static up
Philipp Überbacher, Fri 2011-06-17 @ 21:30:45+0200:
> Afaik the /24 is correct for the local network, although I don't know
> what it means. Seems like this is called prefix length in the switch.
> The netmask according to the switch settings is 255.255.255.0.
>
> It definitely worked in rc.conf w
Excerpts from Robin Martinjak's message of 2011-06-17 13:03:44 +0200:
> > > > $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static
> > > > DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static
> > > > DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0
> > > > :: ethernet-moheim-static up
> > > $ sudo NETCFG_DEBUG="yes" netcfg ethernet-moheim-static
> > > DEBUG: Loading profile ethernet-moheim-static
> > > DEBUG: Configuring interface eth0
> > > :: ethernet-moheim-static up
> > >
Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-17 11:22:35 +0200:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher
> wrote:
> > I'm trying to make the switch to netcfg but it fails in mulltiple ways.
> >
> > 1) apparently a warning only when connecting to wlan:
> > nl80211: 'nl80211' gener
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> I'm trying to make the switch to netcfg but it fails in mulltiple ways.
>
> 1) apparently a warning only when connecting to wlan:
> nl80211: 'nl80211' generic netlink not found
>
> The module is indeed not loaded, but not blacklisted ei
Excerpts from Martti Kühne's message of 2011-06-13 01:01:07 +0200:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Philipp Überbacher
> wrote:
>
> > Yes, most likely nicer than rc.conf editing for dhcp/static and custom
> > shell script for wlan, it's just that netcfg feels like just a wrapper
> > around wpa
actually... the parts I'm using (net-profiles daemon and
afore-mentioned bridge config) aren't even breaking if wireless_tools
and wpa_supplicant are missing. That kind of removes them as mandatory
"dependencies" already.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Philipp Überbacher
wrote:
> Yes, most likely nicer than rc.conf editing for dhcp/static and custom
> shell script for wlan, it's just that netcfg feels like just a wrapper
> around wpa_supplicant and thus somewhat pointless.
>
>
Probably I should mention that n
Excerpts from cantabile's message of 2011-06-11 11:16:54 +0200:
> On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as
> > a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch
> > between dhcp and a static addres
Am Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:16:54 +0300
schrieb cantabile :
> On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> > Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network
> > stuff as a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to
> > switch between dhcp and a static address from t
On 06/11/2011 11:55 AM, Philipp Überbacher wrote:
Another thing, is it still possible to have the rc.conf network stuff as
a one-liner or is this new format required? I just need to switch
between dhcp and a static address from time to time and a one liner is
more convenient to comment/uncomment.
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 10:55:35 +0200
Philipp Überbacher wrote:
> Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-11 02:22:56 +0200:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning
> > wrote:
> > > 1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that
> > > c
Excerpts from Tom Gundersen's message of 2011-06-11 02:22:56 +0200:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > 1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that
> > correct?
>
> Correct.
>
> > So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be u
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 02:22:56AM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> > 1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that
> > correct?
>
> Correct.
>
> > So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used t
Hi Magnus,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Magnus Therning wrote:
> 1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that
> correct?
Correct.
> So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load
> modules at boot-up.
Correct.
> (Is there even a way to configure mod
I just read about the changes to module blacklisting[1] and I'm left
wondering:
1. As I read it, it's only blacklisting that's affected, is that
correct?
So MODULES in rc.conf can in the future only be used to load
modules at boot-up. (Is there even a way to configure modprobe to
load
17 matches
Mail list logo
