Hello, On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 19:32:03 +0100 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > > 3) ifupdown integration is really bad > > ifupdown is really a good framework, it offers hooks and and is > > properly integrated in many packages. > ifupdown *was* a good framework, but Linux moved on. ifupdown doesn't > know anything about interface state. Why should it? It's a configuration tool, not a monitoring one. If monitoring is needed, a different tool can be developed which would perfectly integrate into ifupdown... but nobody has needed that yet? > It doesn't know whether hooks succeeded and it can't check for > failures because that would be an incompatible change (#547587). It can, and compatibility isn't a matter here, it's just a question of bringing other packages to a state they should have been in already. Also, as you don't know the stuff behind ifupdown development, please don't make such statements, okay? We're in the freeze now, so the work on ifupdown is limited to fixing RC bugs for a while, but this doesn't mean new stuff won't be developed to make ifupdown better. -- WBR, Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature