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

Re: Ifupdown, loopback interface, /etc/network/interfaces.d


On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 00:12:29 +0100
Michael Biebl <biebl@debian.org> wrote:

> On 06.01.2013 23:48, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > First of all, I'd like to remind that ifupdown supports source
> > directive since very long ago (it was actually my very first patch
> > to

> I've checked the squeeze version of ifupdown, and it doesn't seem to
> support that directive. So calling it supported "since very long" is
> probably a bit far fetched.
> It was complete news to me tbh.

Actually, it's supported for more than 1.5 years already, and the
initial version of the patch has been available since 2.5 years ago.
So yes, I call that very long ago — but I agree, it's not been in

And by the way, this has been annouced here.

> > ifupdown to add that support), so anyone can split their network
> > config into small chucks and place them
> > under /etc/network/interfaces.d — it's not done by default,
> > however, yet.

> Please keep in mind that such a setup will break existing tools and
> scripts, which rely on finding the interface definitions in /e/n/i.
> E.g. the ifupdown plugin in NetworkManager doesn't know anything about
> such a source directive.
> If you are going to use such a interfaces.d/ directory this will break
> the NM integration.

Well, yes, I forgot about NM. Actually, as far as I know, it's the only
tool affected, everything else either doesn't care to read /e/n/i, or
is already fixed, or this difference is irrelevant and doesn't need to
be urgently patched. Correct me if I'm wrong.

> > I'd like to hear opinions on this idea.
> > The current version of the patch is attached.

> Imho it is far too late in the release to consider such a change for
> wheezy as this has effects on d-i other tools in the archive (as shown
> above).

Okay, maybe you're right, as we still have NM unpatched, and it's too
little time to patch and test it. So, just sourcing the directory by
default shouldn't be enabled either, should it?

WBR, Andrew

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: