Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread Manoj Srivastava
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:43:22 +0100, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > also sprach Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0334 > +0100]: >> Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed >> infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. > It's

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread David Goodenough
On Thursday 24 August 2006 09:58, Miles Bader wrote: > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed > >> infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. > > > > It's a great language to develop stuff at a modera

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0958 +0100]: > It may well be (kinda ugly though) -- but that doesn't mean it's > appropriate for a core system facility, which often needs to work > even when the system is in a degraded state. Let me set this straight: I have no intention t

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread Andrew Donnellan
On 8/24/06, Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed >> infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. > > It's a great language to develop stuff at a moderate speed.

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread Miles Bader
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed >> infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. > > It's a great language to develop stuff at a moderate speed. It may well be (kinda ugly though) -- but that doesn

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0811 +0100]: > Introducing dependencies on DBUS into a package essential to > system operation doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. Take a p Take a l Take a u Take a g Take a i Take a n and mix and stir with "Suggests" -- Plea

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Sylvain Le Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0727 +0100]: > What about creating a DBUS interface -> it can be integrated in > any language that support it, and can be integrated in a GUI > application. HAL, DBUS, whatever. I don't pretend to know anything about this magic stuff, but

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.24.0334 +0100]: > Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed > infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. It's a great language to develop stuff at a moderate speed. Also note that much of Debian st

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-24 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:27:26 +0700, Sylvain Le Gall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about creating a DBUS interface -> it can be integrated in any > language that support it, and can be integrated in a GUI application. Introducing dependencies on DBUS into a package essential to system operatio

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Sylvain Le Gall
Hello, On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 04:45:52PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.23.1634 +0100]: > > >It's an idea with the final goal to provide most of what > > >ifupdown+guessnet+resolvconf do now, > > > > I would personally add ifrename to

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Miles Bader
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I want to use Python for netconf and possibly later port it to C++. Python (and any language that depends on vast amounts of installed infrastructure) seems a bit dodgy for a core low-level facility. I guess if you only intend to add high-level layers

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 23:05:31 +0700, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This means you're suggesting a whole new aspect of functionality to be introduced to udev, because udev is currently, AFAIK, only for creating device nodes under /dev/. cat /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.23.1659 +0100]: > This means you're suggesting a whole new aspect of functionality > to be introduced to udev, because udev is currently, AFAIK, only > for creating device nodes under /dev/. cat /etc/udev/rules.d/z25_persistent-net.rule

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:45:52 +0700, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would personally add ifrename to this list. I would suggest udev instead. This means you're suggesting a whole new aspect of functionality to be introduced to udev, because udev is currently, AFAIK, only fo

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.23.1634 +0100]: > >It's an idea with the final goal to provide most of what > >ifupdown+guessnet+resolvconf do now, > > I would personally add ifrename to this list. I would suggest udev instead. > >with better integration with wireless

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 22:17:23 +0700, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I would add my thoughts there but currently I know nothing about netconf beyond what's written on that page now. What is the scope of netconf? Is it supposed to supersede ifupdown, supplement it, or be an alternativ

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.23.1610 +0100]: > I would add my thoughts there but currently I know nothing about netconf > beyond what's written on that page now. What is the scope of netconf? Is > it supposed to supersede ifupdown, supplement it, or be an alternat

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:20:26 +0700, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Please take a look at http://wiki.debian.org/netconf . It would be great if you could help flesh out that page with your excellent arguments and thoughts. Also, if you are interested in working on netconf (which cu

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:11:16 +0700, David Goodenough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Obviously if you are configuring a server you do not want others than the administrator setting up the network, but if you are the sole user of a laptop there needs to be a safe way for the user (non-technical) to

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-23 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:03:49 +0700, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I've been wondering for a while if it might not be possible to develop a more up-to-date ifup/down that would a) maintain suitability for non-graphical environments and b) have enough functionality, cross-distro, to be us

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-20 Thread Jamin W. Collins
Alexey Feldgendler wrote: Greetings to everybody on this list, it's my first post here. ifupdown, the official Debian network configuration tool, is great for configuring interfaces like Ethernet adapters. However, as time goes, more and more use cases occur which are hard to fulfill with ifu

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-20 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Alexey Feldgendler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.08.20.0858 +0100]: > Having summarized the conceptual problems of the current ifupdown, I'll > describe my vision of what it should look like. Please take a look at http://wiki.debian.org/netconf . It would be great if you could help fles

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-20 Thread David Goodenough
On Sunday 20 August 2006 08:58, Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > Greetings to everybody on this list, it's my first post here. > > ifupdown, the official Debian network configuration tool, is great for > configuring interfaces like Ethernet adapters. However, as time goes, more > and more use cases occu

Re: Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-20 Thread Jon Dowland
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 02:58:25PM +0700, Alexey Feldgendler wrote: > My guess is that it's time to rethink the philosophy > behind ifupdown and give it some natural development. Interesting post. Many of these problems (and others not listed) also apply to the ifup/down suite in other distributi

Time to rethink ifupdown

2006-08-20 Thread Alexey Feldgendler
Greetings to everybody on this list, it's my first post here. ifupdown, the official Debian network configuration tool, is great for configuring interfaces like Ethernet adapters. However, as time goes, more and more use cases occur which are hard to fulfill with ifupdown as it is. My gues