Am Wed, 20 May 2015 10:44:58 +0000 (UTC) schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net>:
> Marc Joliet posted on Wed, 20 May 2015 10:01:13 +0200 as excerpted: > > > A few days ago I finally got around to giving systemd-networkd a whirl, > > as I said I would in the sub-thread started by Rich. It turns out that > > it fulfils the needs of my computers just fine, and has (together with > > systemd-resolved) fully replaced netctl. The only thing I'm not sure of > > is how extensive IPv6 support is. The man page suggests that only > > DHCPv6 is supported, but not stateless configuration. Not that my LAN > > has IPv6, but it'd be nice to know how future proof it is. > > I don't recall whether you mentioned whether you're running stable or > ~arch, and I didn't see mention of the version of systemd you're running > now, but FWIW... I'm arch, so running systemd-218. > I'm ~arch, but am still on systemd-218 (-r3), while 219 is latest ~arch. > This is for two reasons you may find interesting, one of which pertains > to networkd and thus to the quoted bit, above: > [Snip two bug descriptions] Damn, that sounds bad. However, I'm running stable, so won't be affected. I do agree with both you and Rich, though, that systemd really ought to have a stable branch. Their release workflow appears to me to be much like that of the linux kernel, only without the stable trees. Honestly, I would be surprised if they didn't have the developer resources to provide this. -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
pgpNUJynJLBe5.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
