I was previously using the unstable baselayout package, and just upgraded to sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.0_alpha1 I have a static network configuration specified in /etc/conf.d/net, as specified here: config_wlan0=( "192.168.0.101/24" ) gateways_wlan0="192.168.0.1" routes_wlan0="default gw 192.168.0.1" dns_servers_wlan0="192.168.0.1" This configuration previously worked, but now I get an error stating that "gw" is not a valid inet address. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up a static IP address with a static route in /etc/conf.d/net 2. Start that interface 3. See error messages Actual Results: Nn error stating that "gw" is not a valid inet address. Expected Results: running the routes command should show the correct default route
routes_wlan0="default via 192.168.0.1"
Eh, cut'n'paste sucks... routes_wlan0=( "default via 192.168.0.1" )
Thank you! Odd that I didn't have the parenthesis before, and it worked, but now it does. Oh well - good enough for me. (In reply to comment #2) > Eh, cut'n'paste sucks... > > routes_wlan0=( "default via 192.168.0.1" ) >
Yes, this will work routes_wlan0=( "default via 192.168.0.1" ) so will this routes_wlan0="'default via 192.168.0.1'" As both define it one entity. However routes_wlan0="default via 192.168.0.1" defines 3 entities. jakub - there will no doubt be a few bugs regarding this :/ In our defense, routes_wlan0="default via 192.168.0.1" was never documented
(In reply to comment #4) > jakub - there will no doubt be a few bugs regarding this :/ > In our defense, routes_wlan0="default via 192.168.0.1" was never documented There are lots of bugs all the time, no big problem w/ this. As long as stuff like ( "default via a.b.c.d" ) still works, it shouldn't be anything massive. :)
One thing i noticed though is if using something like config_eth0="'83.227.236.5 netmask 255.255.255.192'" it won't set the netmask correctly, while '83.227.236.5/26' will.
(In reply to comment #6) > One thing i noticed though is if using something like > config_eth0="'83.227.236.5 netmask 255.255.255.192'" > it won't set the netmask correctly, while '83.227.236.5/26' will. Thanks for that - it's just been fixed in our svn repo.
Created attachment 116147 [details, diff] Fixe netmask2cidr
