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. [snip]
> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1301852627.3448.32.camel@pi0307572