On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld <ja...@zx2c4.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: >> We'd have to look in all the possible folders, and there may (and due >> to 99-deafult.link, always will) be files there, so we don't really >> have a reasonable test. When we start shipping some default .network >> files it becomes even harder (e.g. the thing Lennart mentioned which >> will only apply for given interfaces that we create ourselves inside >> systemd-nspawn). We'll then always have config files, but they may not >> necessarily apply (and we can't know whether or not they ever will). > > It seems like the component in this equation that always does know > whether or not it should be running is the system administrator who is > taking the time to write config files for networkd, or not. And in the > case that the sysadmin sits down to write config files, then > undoubtedly he'll also 'systemctl enable systemd-networkd.service' it. > In the case that he doesn't write config files, then of course it > shouldn't be running by default.
You probably sent this before reading my previous answer, so sorry for repeating myself: there will soon be cases where (special purpose) config files are shipped by packages rather than written by administrators, which is what we want to 'just work'. The admin and/or distribution is of course free to ignore our recommendation (as always). Cheers, Tom _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
