to 11. heinäk. 2024 klo 12.34 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:23:38AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > > > Claiming to offer a drop-in substitute all while nudging people > > > > towards a new paradigm is not welcome. > > > > > > If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this > > > conversation. > > > > The paradigm is working. > > I mean looking at the other half of this thread, clearly the ifupdown* > paradigm isn't working at all for some people which I think is > unfortunate. I just want to point out that -ng comes as a library too > (which I haven't packaged separately yet) so integrating with > /etc/network/interfaces and even the interface state should very much be > possible for any other network managment tool that would want to.
I haven't see anyone answer the question of what doesn't work with ifupdown. > I still think you're making too much of this `use` feature. I had a > conversation with upstream about it and took another look at the code and > it's basically just an optimization to *only* run the delcared executors as > opposed to all of them (in case any of their config stanzas are used). Whcih still could be accomplished using the 3rd item of the traditional ifdown line. > > > How else would you move /etc/network/interfaces forward without breaking > > > anything? > > > > I would really like to hear what is wrong with the current format. > > I'd like to hear what is wrong with making the current format more > extensible with full legacy compatibility? > > The format is fine, but ofc. ifupdown-ng is going to extend it where it > makes sense. > > > For my perspective, the main issues with ifupdown are: > > > > 1) ifupdown doesn't handle bridges and vlans without external > > packages, yet it already depends upon iproute2, which provides 'ip' > > i.e. a command that can handle these quite nicely. > > Not quite true, vlan support is now internal AFAIK, or at least I haven't > installed `vlan` in ages and things seem to work :) I said ifupdown, not ifupdown-ng. > > 4) That systemd unit generation blissfully ignores anything else that > > physical interfaces in /etc/network/interfaces which introduces yet > > more reproducibility problems. > > Not sure what you're talking about here? ifupdown has helpers that dynamically generate systemd service units upon bootup. It only generates them for en* and wl* interfaces, which are then started at random according to systemd preferences. Later in the boot process, a generic networking.service unit is run to bring up everything else found in /etc/network/interfaces e.g. vlan, bridges. Martin-Éric
