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 : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/1396039687.4331.41.ca...@kagura.malsain.org
