On 9/20/16, Denys Vlasenko <vda.li...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:33 PM, David Henderson
> <dhender...@digital-pipe.com> wrote:
>>> General idea is described here:
>>> https://busybox.net/~vda/no_ifup.txt
>>
>> Looked at it, wouldn't this be the same thing as scripts in
>> /etc/network/if-*.d directories?
>
> It won't be the same, and the document explains why.
> You did not understand it.
> Example #1: the "ifup -a hangs at boot" case
> Example #2: "ifup eth0" + pppd in parallel simultaneously upping ppp0.
> What will be the default route in "ifup" world?

So the only difference is to not pass the '-a' switch, but instead to
pass the direct name of the adapter?  You're telling me that by doing
the latter over the former will make things faster, safer?  Also, I'm
not a fan really of monolithic approaches.  Modular typically yields
better results.

Dave
_______________________________________________
busybox mailing list
busybox@busybox.net
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox

Reply via email to