Michael Biebl wrote:
> schrieb Bob Proulx:
> > If a client system requires an NFS mounted file system then the admin
> > must configure the network to be "auto" and not "allow-hotplug".
> > The simple reason is that because otherwise it won't work. :-)
>
> That's not quite acurate. The if-up.d
Am 24.12.2015 um 00:29 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
>> schrieb Bob Proulx:
>>> If a client system requires an NFS mounted file system then the admin
>>> must configure the network to be "auto" and not "allow-hotplug".
>>> The simple reason is that because otherwise it won't work. :-)
Martin Pitt wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> > I still think though, that we should consider allow-hotplug interfaces
> > when dealing with network-online.target.
> >
> > The reason is, that the debian installer uses allow-hotplug by default.
>
> Argh, this is indeed a tremendously bad default.
On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:57:39PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> In addition to
> [Install]
> WantedBy=network-online.target
>
> you also need
> [Unit]
> Before=network-online.target
Ok.
> It also looks like the
> /etc/systemd/system/network-online.target.wants/networking.service
> was not
Am 21.12.2015 um 22:30 schrieb Guus Sliepen:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 05:57:39PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> It also looks like the
>> /etc/systemd/system/network-online.target.wants/networking.service
>> was not created here when I upgraded from 0.8.2
>
> Hm, you are right. It is installed
Am 20.12.2015 um 22:37 schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 20.12.2015 um 22:23 schrieb Guus Sliepen:
>> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:48:07PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>>
>>> Guus already suggested to simply add
>>> WantedBy=network-online.target
>>>
>>> This would be a partial solution and better then
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 08:48:07PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Guus already suggested to simply add
> WantedBy=network-online.target
>
> This would be a partial solution and better then nothing, I guess.
Since noone is against this, I'll go for this option. If I understand
systemd correctly,
Am 14.12.2015 um 08:38 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> In order to not deviate too much from this schema, I'd prefer
> ifupdown-wait-online to do the same, i. e. wait until all "ifup"s of
> your "auto" interfaces are done. This will respect the configuration
> and not second-guess the admin. Thus in
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 05:18:36PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > So network-online.target is very ill-defined, and I'd rather not see
> > anything depending on it, but if we have to, I'd like something that is
> > as conservative as possible.
>
> I think we should have something that's
]] Guus Sliepen
> offline() {
> ip -4 r s | grep -q ^default && return 1
> ip -6 r s | grep -q ^default && return 1
> return 0
> }
As a default, this is fine. It can't be the only way to do it, though.
(I have hosts with a full routing table and hence no default route, and
I
Am 07.12.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Guus Sliepen:
> Now that we have a proper systemd service
> for ifupdown, could we just add WantedBy=network-online.target to
> networking.service? The only difference to me seems that your script
> waits until ifup has configured at least one interface, while the
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:59:42PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Now that we have a proper systemd service
> > for ifupdown, could we just add WantedBy=network-online.target to
> > networking.service? The only difference to me seems that your script
> > waits until ifup has configured at least
Am 10.12.2015 um 15:12 schrieb Guus Sliepen:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 01:59:42PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>> The benefit here is, that other services, that don't need
>> network-online.target would not be blocked unnecessarily during boot.
>
> I don't understand this. Are services that don't
Hello,
Michael Biebl [2015-12-03 21:38 +0100]:
> >> Yes. The only problem though is that it requires the admin to correctly
> >> specify which interfaces are "auto" and which are "hotplug", because
> >> ifupdown cannot really figure that out itself. And there might be some
> >> cases where a
Am 04.12.2015 um 09:35 schrieb Martin Pitt:
> Hello,
>
> Michael Biebl [2015-12-03 21:38 +0100]:
Yes. The only problem though is that it requires the admin to correctly
specify which interfaces are "auto" and which are "hotplug", because
ifupdown cannot really figure that out
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:06:01PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> many thanks for adding a native networking.service! Michael and I
> found some corrections and tweaks to be made,
Thanks for having a look at it. I'm still quite new to SystemD, so any
help there is welcome :)
> and we would also
Hey Guus,
thanks for the quick answer! Nice to see that ifupdown is not
abandoned any more, great work!
Guus Sliepen [2015-12-03 13:44 +0100]:
> > - Add After=local-fs.target. Depending on a read-only root partition
> >might not be enough, as there might be actions in /e/n/i which
> >
Hi Guus
Am 03.12.2015 um 13:44 schrieb Guus Sliepen:
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 01:06:01PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
>
>> many thanks for adding a native networking.service! Michael and I
>> found some corrections and tweaks to be made,
>
> Thanks for having a look at it. I'm still quite new to
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 03:51:14PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Just minor nitpick from the peanut gallery: Upstream wants it to be
> called systemd, not SystemD.
Oops.
> > No problem. Are there other such services that might require loading
> > before ifupdown? SELinux?
>
> Should we order
19 matches
Mail list logo
