On Thu, 02.10.14 19:48, Cameron Norman (camerontnor...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 10:36 PM, Tom Gundersen <t...@jklm.no> wrote: > > Hi Cameron, > > > > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 6:36 AM, Cameron Norman <camerontnor...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> ifupdown [1], NetworkManager, and WICD all support hooks for when a > >> network interface is configured or deconfigured (before and after > >> these actions). > >> > >> Are there any plans to support something along these lines? If so, > >> what will that look like? > >> > >> If there are no plans, how do networkd's developers feel about adding > >> the feature (will not merge, or will accept patches, etc.) ? > > > > I am sceptical to adding hooks, so would need a lot of convincing. > > What we do, however, is to expose the configuration state using the > > sd-network C API, which external programs can watch and react on (see > > how timesyncd and resolved currently works). > > Does the C API allow programs to temporarily stall bringing up or down > the interface, or does it only deliver signals of if state?
No it does not allow synchronous hooks. Only asynchronous notification is supported. > Out of curiosity, where does your aversion to hooks come from? Does it > add significant complication code wise, or is it more with respect to > using networkd before any filesystems are mounted (thus the hook files > would not be present)? Well, we want networkd to be clean and properly written, and I simply have the suspicion that if start allowing glueing in badly integrated stuff via shell scripts, we'll have a hard time to ever fix this again. I mean, network management solutions that shell out to external tools we have enough, but networkd is really not supposed to be like that. It shouldn't just be a glued together thing, but somewhat uniform. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel