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

Re: support for merged /usr in Debian

On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 12:29:42 +0100, Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org>
> ? 17 janvier 2016 11:25 +0100, Marc Haber <mh+debian-devel@zugschlus.de> :
>>>Of course, vlan1 is up because with networkd, configuring the "netdev" makes
>>>it up while in Debian, setting the IP makes it up. However, I don't see
>>>you whining about the lack of flexibility in Debian where you cannot
>>>execute a command when the interface is up but before it gets an IP.
>> Because ifupdown has pre-up and up options in /e/n/i and hooks for
>> scripts.
>ifupdown doesn't give a hook for executing something after putting the
>interface up and before setting an IP address. This can be useful to
>check if we are plugged to the right switch port or to wait for the STP
>state of the remote switch to be "forwarding". That's a different kind
>of limitation.

Anyway, ifupdown used to be a lot more flexible than networkd is
today. networkd is still the better solution.

>networkd puts the interface up when creating it. It introduces an
>unfortunate limitation, just workaround it with an unit file. You'll
>have to accept at some point that upstream wants networkd to only cover
>the most common use cases and that for more complex setups, you have
>other solutions (like ifupdown, network manager or manual unit files).

networkd's feature set is celearly made for servers, otherwise it
would not support bonding, VLANs and bridging, hardly part of the
"most common use cases". IPv6 is much more common than bonding, for

Networkd is just plagued by upstream's aversion against giving people
a choice and is hence missing an interface for local extensions. I
hate the idea of having to go through the same motions again and again
for every setting that the kernel people decided to expose. The kernel
community is so much easier to work with.

>> Btw, the word "whine" is offensive. Please cut that out.
>What's the proper english verb for someone who complains everytime in a
>negative way? Maybe "rant" would be more appropriate.

How about "complain"?

>>>> People in the systemd community are asking us to not use
>>>> EnvironmentFile or otherwise Lennart might feel forced to remove it
>>>> since we're all using it wrong.
>>>> This is what gets me absolutely furious.
>>>Already debunked here:
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00384.html
>>> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2016/01/msg00075.html
>> Please note what prompted my outburst, and guess whose opinion gets
>> endorsed by systemd upstream.
>I don't know what you mean. But I can understand that upstream prefers
>to endorse opinion of people who engage in constructive discussions
>instead of "ranting".

One can discuss constructiveness. The discussion was like:

Harald: "Please extend the EnvironmentFile syntax, I'd like to use it
in a slightly different way for my use case"
systemd upstream: "You're using it wrong. I should never have
implemented it."
systemd fanboi: "Let's remove it then!"
Harald: "No, I'm using it."
systemd fanboi: "You're using it wrong, systemd upstream said. Please
don't force systemd upstream to remove the feature by still continuing
to use it the wrong way! It's much better to fix your outdated daemon
to have its own configuration file instead of relying on command line
options since it's work for systemd to pass them! And, btw, your whole
way of doing system administration is wrong, please change it to the
only right way that we documented as being the only right way two
weeks ago!"
Zugschlus: "<expletives deleted, Debian has a CoC, I can't word this

That's not what I call "constructive". It's talking about destroying
existing and working setups instead of caring for user wishes.

-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Reply to: