also sprach Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.11.04.1404 +0100]:
> map !disconnected
I guess this is as good as it'll get. Possibly actually better than
my initial thought. Thanks,
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator,
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 11:10:01AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Here's a reason whyI want this feature:
[...]
> Now I want to be able to say that the disconnected test does not
> apply to the wifi $IFACE. I can thus limit the wifi mapping to the
> other tests (as you suggest), but then every ti
On Fri, Sep 15, 2006 at 11:10:01AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> Remembering that you said that guessnet works by favourising stanzas
> for which multiple commands succeed, I tried to add
> test command [ "$IFACE" != wifi ]
> but ifupdown does not like that:
> lapse:~# ifup wifi
> /etc/network
also sprach Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.25.2355 +0200]:
> The way I understand ifupdown to work is to provide configuration
> stanzas that don't know about the actual names of the physical
> interfaces, and mapping stanza that define the mapping. So I'll
> limit myself to that.
Here'
reopen 374326
tag 374326 wontfix
thanks
* Enrico Zini [Fri, 25 Aug 2006 22:55:51 +0100]:
> However, please feel free to reopen the bug. I'll tag it wontfix, but
> I'll be happy to apply a patch that closes it if someone provides it.
I would like this. Both the feature and the bug to stay open,
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 10:32:11PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.25.1524 +0100]:
> > This is something you can do by limiting the candidate profiles for an
> > interface in the mapping stanza.
> No, that's the wrong way around. :)
> I know I ca
also sprach Enrico Zini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.25.1524 +0100]:
> This is something you can do by limiting the candidate profiles for an
> interface in the mapping stanza.
No, that's the wrong way around. :)
I know I can use limits in the mapping stanza, but i really would
like to be able to
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 05:41:27PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> If it's not too much trouble, maybe we could implement a limit-to
> keyword, which takes interface names as arguments. Then, when
> guessnet runs, it only runs tests without limits or where the limit
> set includes the interface to
Package: guessnet
Version: 0.38-1.1
Severity: wishlist
If it's not too much trouble, maybe we could implement a limit-to
keyword, which takes interface names as arguments. Then, when
guessnet runs, it only runs tests without limits or where the limit
set includes the interface to be configured.
T
9 matches
Mail list logo
