On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:22:48PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Josh Triplett [2015-09-20 13:37 -0700]:
> > > The missing hook/extension mechanism in networkd is something which is
> > > an issue.
> >
> > I wouldn't necessarily put it *that* way. The functionality currently
> > handled by ifupdown
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 01:34:47PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Control: tag -1 pending
>
> Hello all,
Hi Martin,
> as discussed, I reverted the if-*.d/ calling in git now. I replaced it
> with a focussed (although admittedly a bit hackish) helper unit to
> update resolvconf from networkd for now
Control: tag -1 pending
Hello all,
as discussed, I reverted the if-*.d/ calling in git now. I replaced it
with a focussed (although admittedly a bit hackish) helper unit to
update resolvconf from networkd for now, and this will be completely
inert if you don't use resolvconf.
If you don't want t
Hello Josh,
sorry for the late answer.
Josh Triplett [2015-09-20 13:37 -0700]:
> > The missing hook/extension mechanism in networkd is something which is
> > an issue.
>
> I wouldn't necessarily put it *that* way. The functionality currently
> handled by ifupdown hooks needs handling in some wa
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 04:08:51PM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Fwiw, I mentioned similar concerns as Josh when I discussed this topic
> with Martin but I also see where Martin is coming from.
>
> The missing hook/extension mechanism in networkd is something which is
> an issue.
I wouldn't neces
Michael Biebl [2015-09-20 16:18 +0200]:
> hooks under ifupdown afaik *do* run synchronous and ifupdown waits for
> the hooks to complete.
> That means a hook can return a non-zero exit code to abort the bring up
> of the interface. Afaics, this is required so hooks can *extend* the
> functionality
Am 20.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Martin Pitt:
>>> The hooks are run asynchronously and don't block networkd.
>> >
>> > Interesting; as far as I know, that's a change compared to how other as
>> > far as I know those hooks are normally run synchronously by other
>> > software.
> What do you mean by "
Fwiw, I mentioned similar concerns as Josh when I discussed this topic
with Martin but I also see where Martin is coming from.
The missing hook/extension mechanism in networkd is something which is
an issue.
Am 20.09.2015 um 15:54 schrieb Martin Pitt:
>> Hardly a zillion packages; here's a comple
Hello Josh,
j...@joshtriplett.org [2015-09-11 10:58 -0700]:
> > FTR, this was discussed a few months ago with Tom Gundersen (the
> > author of networkd) at the UOS discussion for this:
> >
> >
> > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/foundations-w-networkd-vs-ifupdown
>
> What was hi
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 09:41:34AM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Josh Triplett [2015-09-10 23:54 -0700]:
> > * Make networkd call if-up.d/ scripts when it brings up interfaces, to
> > become compatible with ifupdown and NetworkManager for packages shipping
> > hooks. (LP: #1492129)
> >
> >
Hey Josh,
Josh Triplett [2015-09-10 23:54 -0700]:
> * Make networkd call if-up.d/ scripts when it brings up interfaces, to
> become compatible with ifupdown and NetworkManager for packages shipping
> hooks. (LP: #1492129)
>
> (Along with various other changes related to these hooks.)
>
Package: systemd
Version: 226-1
Severity: normal
[Filing this as "normal" only because systemd-networkd is not yet
normally used in Debian, and is not packaged separately; this is
release-critical for systemd-networkd.]
>From the changelog of 226-1:
* Make networkd call if-up.d/ scripts when i
12 matches
Mail list logo
