systemd-network.service should not be started unless the administrator
runs "systemctl enable systemd-network.service", as it's entirely
unessential and most distributions use their own network management
daemons instead. If some distributions or users choose to use systemd's
built in networking, t
On Fri, 21.02.14 04:38, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
> systemd-network.service should not be started unless the administrator
> runs "systemctl enable systemd-network.service", as it's entirely
> unessential and most distributions use their own network management
> daemons instead.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 21.02.14 04:38, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
>> systemd-network.service should not be started unless the administrator
>> runs "systemctl enable systemd-network.service", as it's entirely
>> unessential and most
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> I'll just apply this patch and
> add the /etc symlink in a follow-up.
I appreciate merging my patch, so now administrators can disable it in
a sane way (without having to use mask). But still, why enable it by
default? I thought the idea of
On Fri, 21.02.14 15:03, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> > I'll just apply this patch and
> > add the /etc symlink in a follow-up.
>
> I appreciate merging my patch, so now administrators can disable it in
> a sane way (with
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>
> Well, ultimately it's up the distributions to decide what they want to
> enable and what not.
True, but this requires manual patching and fixing up of `make
install`, which is a bummer.
> I think networkd is a good choice, especially
2014-02-21 16:31 GMT+01:00 Jason A. Donenfeld :
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, ultimately it's up the distributions to decide what they want to
>> enable and what not.
>
> True, but this requires manual patching and fixing up of `make
> install`, which i
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2014-02-21 16:31 GMT+01:00 Jason A. Donenfeld :
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, ultimately it's up the distributions to decide what they want to
>>> enable and what not.
>>
>> True, but this req
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> We'd have to look in all the possible folders, and there may (and due
> to 99-deafult.link, always will) be files there, so we don't really
> have a reasonable test. When we start shipping some default .network
> files it becomes even harder
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, ultimately it's up the distributions to decide what they want to
>> enable and what not.
>
> True, but this requires manual patching and fixing up of `make
> insta
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>> We'd have to look in all the possible folders, and there may (and due
>> to 99-deafult.link, always will) be files there, so we don't really
>> have a reasonable test. When we sta
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
>
> In the not-too-distant future we'll start shipping some configuration
> files (as Lennart mentioned to do with nspawn). These are files that
> in most cases will not apply, and shouldn't interfere with your
> existing networking solutions,
On Fri, 21.02.14 16:31, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >
> > Well, ultimately it's up the distributions to decide what they want to
> > enable and what not.
>
> True, but this requires manual patching and fixing up
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> You probably sent this before reading my previous answer, so sorry for
> repeating myself: there will soon be cases where (special purpose)
> config files are shipped by packages rather than written by
> administrators, which is what we want
On Fri, 21.02.14 17:14, Jason A. Donenfeld (ja...@zx2c4.com) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> >
> > In the not-too-distant future we'll start shipping some configuration
> > files (as Lennart mentioned to do with nspawn). These are files that
> > in most cases w
Am 21.02.2014 17:03, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>> What about Zbigniews idea of using something like:
>> ConditionDirectoryNotEmpty=/etc/systemd/network/
>>
>> Would that work?
>
> We'd have to look in all the possible folders, and there may (and due
> to 99-deafult.link, always will) be files there,
> True, but this requires manual patching and fixing up of `make
> install`, which is a bummer.
Why?
Your debian/rules or rpmspec %build can simply do something like this:
make install
rm -f ${DEST}/etc/systemd/system/FOOO.BAR
that is much easier than quilt patches that modify Makefile.
17 matches
Mail list logo
