[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy

Le dimanche 03 avril 2011 à 20:38 +0800, Paul Wise a écrit : 
> The problem with that design is that it isn't based in *fact*. The
> fact is that the kernel is where the current networking status is
> held, controlled and modified. AFAICT the NM authors ignored that fact
> in their designs and are resistant to changing the design. That leads
> me to think that NM is not the way forward. Waiting for someone to
> re-implement netconf in C seems to be the only way forward.

> IIRC netconf communicates with the kernel to know what the current situation is.

I am not sure this is enough; does the kernel has all the information
you need? Even for a moderately complex setup, I don’t see how it would
scale. If you stack some changes, like adding a bridge or changing
routes, you want to be able to revert to the previous state in a
consistent manner. How can you do that without a daemon that keeps track
of the entire network status for the host?

: :' :     “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know
`. `'       that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.”
  `-        --  J???rg Schilling

Reply to: