-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
Package: src:ifupdown
Hello,
I just noticed another regression in ifupdown with regard to label
handling (worked fine at least in 0.6.8, possibly later versions too).
I have done these tests using 0.7~beta2.
Here's my /etc/network/interfaces:
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.1.100
netmask 255.255.255.0
gateway 192.168.1.1
auto eth0:0
iface eth0:0 inet static
address 192.168.2.100
netmask 255.255.255.0
Now calling:
- ifup eth0 => Causes eth0 to appear and configure
- ifup eth0:0 => Causes the label to appear and configure
So far that's the expected behaviour, calling them in the reverse order:
- ifup eth0:0 => Causes the parent to appear and the label to appear
and configure
- ifup eth0 => Causes eth0 to configure
Still what we'd expect.
Now the interesting part:
- ifdown eth0:0 => Causes eth0:0 to disappear and eth0 to disappear!
- ifdown eth0 => Fails because eth0 is already down
Similar result if done the other way around:
- ifdown eth0 => Causes both eth0 and eth0:0 to disappear
- ifdown eth0:0 => Fails because the label is already gone
So the few changes I'd expect are:
- Bringing a label down shouldn't bring the parent down
- Bringing the parent down should indeed bring the labels down but
should bring them down properly (similar to calling ifdown eth0:0) to
avoid having ifupdown in an inconsistent state.
As far as I can tell, the first of these two changes would fix the
current regression, the second would be an improvement as I can't find
an ifupdown version doing that properly.
Besides that small issue, 0.7~beta2 rocks, thanks for the good work!
- --
Stéphane Graber
Ubuntu developer
http://www.ubuntu.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/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=/M3l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
