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. So far I had the > impression that "auto" is for "must be present for booting", and > "allow-hotplug" is for "bring it up when present, but don't block on > it on boot". But if the installer always uses allow-hotplug, then I > think that completely defies trying to make any difference between the > two.
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. :-) When the debian-installer initially installs a system there is no dependency upon an NFS file system. It is okay to have allow-hotplug be the default used by the d-i. It is a lowest common denominator and works for most systems. However if the admin then configures the system to use a remotely mounted NFS file system part of that configuration must be to set the interface to "auto" requiring it to be present. That's okay. That is the way it has been for every release since "allow-hotplug" arrived. It is also possible to set up other types of mounting such as through an automounter using autofs, amd, or other systems. Each of those will have their own specific needs that must be taken into consideration. If someone requires a hotplugged network system and also wants remote mounting they can set it up but there isn't any standard configuration for it and they will need to be responsible for the complexity of it. Trying to create a magic system that handles every possible combination will end up failing and just creating a mess. Bob
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
