On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 22:24:10 +0100 Andreas Henriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Laurent! Hi Andreas, > I'm looking at the bug you reported against ifupdown, > http://bugs.debian.org/448138. > I can't really comment on the underlying problem, but thought I might > just chime in on one thing. The undelying problem is not revelant, it's just an explanation of my usage of the pre-up -> up -> post-up sequence, or what I was thinking it is. > > As seeing the post-up hooks are run before ifenslave script, so I > > cannot do the arp trick as interface does not exists, and even if I > > force it deleted when interface come up. > > This is maybe a wanted thing but It does not seems intuitive to me. > > (/etc/network/if-up.d/ should maybe > > renamed /etc/network/if-post-up.d/ ?) Or I just miss something... > > While pre-up is it's own command, post-up is just an alias for up! > > I don't know if you can determine in which order the if-up.d scripts and > the (post-)up commands are run. You seems to have found out that the > scripts are run before the commands for you (but I don't know if this is > something to rely on always happening). > > Maybe ifupdown should be modified to make the post-up it's own command > where you can be sure it runs after the if-up.d scripts, so we have > pre-up -> configure -> up (scripts) -> post-up. That way you'll have > reliable order and it would hopefully solve your problem. Just an > idea.... That's exactly the problem, I assume that sequence is pre-up -> configure -> up (scripts) -> post-up (or up at the same time than configure like now). We maybe should set this bug as a wishlist item and think about implement post-up as it's own command that is runned after interface is up. -- Laurent Corbes - [EMAIL PROTECTED] +33 (0)1 4996 6325 Smartjog SA - http://www.smartjog.com/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
