On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebre...@piing.fr> wrote:
[snip] > The way systemd services handle network whatever "network manager" you > enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. > Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even > possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. > > Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here. > > The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is > actually what I would expect in systemd. Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read, they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. But then you had to configure it yourself. [snip] >> And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism, >> and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually >> networkctl. > > Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for > advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool. Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had nothing to do with each other. > The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on > its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice > grain-level dependencies. If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the patches. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
