Mark Hedges wrote: > On Tue, 9 Feb 2010, Michael Biebl wrote: >> So, we really have two separate issues here, thus I cloned >> the bug to handle them separately: >> >> 1.) network-manager does not support pre-up/pre-down >> scripts > > Right, see https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=387832 > >> 2.) the current 01ifupdown script incorrectly maps the NM >> "down" event to the ifupdown pre-down PHASE (running >> scripts in if-down.d). It should map the "down" event to >> PHASE=post-down" and run the script in if-post-down.d > > Sorry, I think that is incorrect. The current 01ifupdown > script is fine. > > The problem is all in NM, which dispatches "down" after the > interface is down.
Yes, NM dispatches its down event after the interface is down. 01ifupdown currently maps that to pre-down, which is broken. You are just arguing from another pov. Your point is, that NM's down event should rather be called post-down. Doesn't change the fact though, that the current mapping is incorrect. > However, I would guess it is still more useful for most > packages to run if-down.d scripts instead of if-post-down.d, > if only one of them is going to run. Not exactly sure what you mean by that. Would you please elaborate. To me it seems like > "up" and "down" have some sort of primacy over "pre-up" and > "post-down." Might be. Imho I find it a bit confusing, that ifupdown does not map its events/PHASES to directories of the same name, i.e. PHASE:pre-up -> if-pre-up.d PHASE:post-up -> if-up.d PHASE:pre-down -> if-down.d PHASE:post-down -> if-post-down.d I guess your point is, that NM's events should be changed to match the names of the script directories, while I lean more to use the PHASE names PHASE:pre-up -> NM pre-up event (not implemented) PHASE:pre-down -> NM pre-down (not implemented) PHASE:post-up -> NM up PHASE:post-down -> NM down > It's difficult to tell. I would suggest keeping status quo > until upstream is fixed to run all four stages at the proper > times. At the current state it is imho rather unlikely that upstream is changing his position on this. So, keeping status-quo means - no support for pre-up/pre-down - NM "up" event (correctly) mapped to post-up (scripts if-up.d) - NM "down" event (incorrectly) mapped to pre-down (scripts if-down.d) I'm a bit puzzled why you think that keeping down mapped to pre-down is preferrable. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
