On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25:47PM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > On 08/16/2016 11:28 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 11:15:03AM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > > > > On 08/16/2016 10:44 AM, Greg KH wrote: > > > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 10:11:27AM +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > > > > Recent case in point is the that the wireguard maintainer was/is > > > > > interested > > > > > seeing it property integrated into systemd. Anywork related to that > > > > > could not > > > > > be started *until* he had his stuff merged in the upstream kernel > > > > > however now > > > > > anyone can have anything not upstreamed implemented in systemd. > > > > Wait, what needs to be added to systemd to get wireguard "working" > > > > properly? It's just like any other network VPN service, what makes it > > > > special (well, becides the very coolness of it of course...) > > > > > > > > Were there patches that were rejected? Any pointers to them? > > > The patches have not been written yet because the systemd developer > > > mentioned he would not accept it until this was merged upstream. > > Again, what type of patches to systemd are needed for wireguard? > > > > For example changes to networkd configuration files.
Such as what specifically? Do other VPNs require changes to systemd in some way? > Why are you so fixated on this since his stance is arguably the correct one > on refusing this in the first place *until* this has been implemented in the > upstream kernel which arguably and should have been done in relation with > cgroup v2 until that got sorted out. Who is "his"? > Are you against the policy of upstreaming first? The world is not black and white :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
