On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 04:43:33PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > [keyfile] > > unmanaged-devices=interface-name=eth0 > > I guess it could do that. This is currently done in > > > https://sources.debian.net/src/ltsp/5.5.5-1/client/share/ltsp/init-ltsp.d/50-interfaces/ > > and it could be equally well writing to NetworkManager.conf.
Great. Who shall do the honors of writing a patch/bug report?
> But independently of that: Do you actually think it is right that
> "ifdown" on a manual interface without any "down" command downs it?
> That isn't documented and hasn't happened until 0.8.4, and IMHO that's
> overzealous and might break other setups too.
Uh, didn't we discuss that in #809169? Wasn't it already the default in
Ubuntu?
Anyway, I'm not for or against it, but I was slightly convinced by the
use case of lots of bonding slave interfaces, that it would make sense
to have empty inet manual interfaces that did bring interfaces up or
down. And that still is more convincing than the use case of LTSP doing
the wrong thing.
> > What I am willing to do is to add the keyword "no-auto-down" to
> > interface stanza's, which will prevent the interface from being brought
> > down using "ifdown -a".
>
> In the interest of backward compatibility, it would perhaps make more
> sense to add a keyword "auto-down" which will then "down" a manual
> interface on ifdown? This would then be a shortcut for
>
> iface eth0 inet manual
> down ifconfig $IFACE down
But do we need backwards compatibility? If we get LTSP and open-iscsi
fixed in unstable, is there still a problem somewhere?
--
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
Guus Sliepen <g...@debian.org>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
