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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.)
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
