On 9/20/16, Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:33 PM, David Henderson > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
