Re: Ifupdown dysfunctional, is a Provides: interface possible please?
Le vendredi 28 mars 2014 à 11:55 -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
> I realize that doing that well is not horribly challenging, but that is
> the most common server use case (and even desktop), and ifupdown does it
> quite well.
Come on. We all use ifupdown on our servers just because it is the
default and works well enough. Bringing up a pair of static IPs and a
bonding link is not very challenging. But we shouldn’t judge a network
management tool based on how to achieve the simplest task: any tool will
do that. Even Red Hat’s /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts, despite its
horrible design and antique syntax, works well enough for most of its
users.
And in the desktop case, I disagree that ifupdown does the job. User
applications want to be notified of the network’s status, and it
requires more than what ifupdown can offer.
> I don't want to lose that, and I don't want to add a bunch of
> complexity in order to satisfy that case. I think there will always be a
> place for a very *simple* system to handle that case with some pre and
> post hooks for things like iptables rule installation.
This is one of the possible scopes of systemd-networkd. But I think it
is being designed more for cases like the initramfs, where you cannot
have a full-blown networking management tool like NM.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: