On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:21:43AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 18:23 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > This is my solution :
> [...]
>
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 21:50 -0800, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > Thanks. Mine is very similar, except that I call ifrename a little
> > earliar, so that it is possible to enable/disable the renamed interface.
> > I sent the script with my last mail to this bug, a few hours ago.
>
>
> Yes, O.K.'s solution looks better.
Sorry for the duplicata ;-)
> On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 18:23 -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> > 2) I personally feel that running ifplugd from hotplug is
> > completely wrong for various reasons. I strongly believe that it
> > should be called from ifup.
>
>
> I don't fully agree with that,
At least, I provide valid reasons for that. The points I list
will need to be addressed somehow.
> but I don't think it is worth disputing
> the point because I am sure that we both agree that the current network
> configuration system is fundamentally inadequate. ifupdown was designed
> to control statically configured interfaces. Something more intelligent
> is needed in order to deal with the dynamic networking of today.
I fully agree. It pains me to see all the ugly workaround in
various packages (especially hotplug/net.agent) for the limitations of
ifupdown.
On the other hand, we want to retain flexibility and control
in the system. Not every interfaces should be automatically managed by
something like ifplugd, I personally want some of my interfaces to
have static IP and wireless config (with manual schemes). I hate when
the system tries to be more clever than me and doesn't give me
override.
> Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Have fun...
Jean
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
