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 complete list of Debian packages: >> > >> > This seems quite manageable, especially once you rule out the ones that >> > make no sense at all with networkd (or with anything other than >> > ifupdown). I'd be happy to help evaluate these further. > That would certainly be nice. It's not that I like the hooks much, but > I believe that nothing at all is gained by tightly coupling > transitions that way, like "sorry, you can't use networkd without > resolved and without fixing those ~ 50 packages first". I like the > evolutionary approach more than the revolutionary one. I basically asked the same: how many packages do actually need such a hook and what do they need it for and would those be eligible for being run under networkd. We didn't fully answer that, so I started extracting the scripts and having a look. See https://people.debian.org/~biebl/ifupdown-hook/ and https://titanpad.com/P040gSeFyr What I'm concerned about is, that our ifupdown hook support is incomplete and some hooks certainly should not be run under networkd. If we are going to provide a hook mechanism, maybe defining our own is better then an incomplete/incompatbile ifup.d hooks support. Anyways, let's first figure out what packages actually need the hooks for, anyone who wants to help filling out the titanpad is welcome -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature