Michael Biebl wrote: > 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
FWIW, I know this bug report and the linked discussions. That's why I don't think that this will change upstream anytime soon. >>> 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. Ok, I think I got your point, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. The if-down.d hooks were written under the premise that the network is still up, which it currently in NM's case is not. But to have a better answer to this question, I guess one would have to analyze the existing ifupdown hooks in Debian and check, what they are actually doing in if-down.d resp. if-post-down.d 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
