Bug 299 - Linuxconf should support all ppp options
Summary: Linuxconf should support all ppp options
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Linux
Classification: Retired
Component: linuxconf   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 5.2
Hardware: i386
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael K. Johnson
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 1998-12-04 15:35 UTC by Michael Meissner
Modified: 2008-05-01 15:37 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 1999-02-11 20:24:23 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michael Meissner 1998-12-04 15:35:36 UTC
Linuxconf should have buttons for each of the ppp options
that can be specified (along with a catchall to support new
options), with help for each option, so you can easily
determine what options to set, without having the NET-3
and/or pppd man page open while running linuxconf.

Glancing at the pppd 2.3.5 man page, options that should be
setable include: passive, bsdcomp, chap-interval,
chap-max-challenge, chap-restart, deflate, demand, domain,
holdoff, idle, ipcp-accept-local, ipcp-accept-remote,
ipcp-max-failure, ipcp-max-terminate, ipcp-restart, ipparm,
all of the ipx options, all of the lcp options, ms-dns,
ms-wins, noipdefault, all of the pap options, persist,
predictor1, vj-max-slots, welcome.

Comment 1 Jay Turner 1998-12-09 19:09:59 UTC
This is really an enhancement request, not a bug.

Comment 2 David Lawrence 1998-12-10 17:53:59 UTC
This has been assigned to a developer for future enhancement requests.

Comment 3 Michael K. Johnson 1999-02-11 20:24:59 UTC
I disagree with this request.  We specifically chose the options
that would be useful to the most people to avoid being confusing;
the other options are only useful to people who know what they
want to do anyway.  We are willing to consider adding specific
options, but we need a coherent argument why each particular option
would have wide use before adding it.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.