| 1 |
Am Wed, 20 May 2015 10:44:58 +0000 (UTC) |
| 2 |
schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marc Joliet posted on Wed, 20 May 2015 10:01:13 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > A few days ago I finally got around to giving systemd-networkd a whirl, |
| 7 |
> > as I said I would in the sub-thread started by Rich. It turns out that |
| 8 |
> > it fulfils the needs of my computers just fine, and has (together with |
| 9 |
> > systemd-resolved) fully replaced netctl. The only thing I'm not sure of |
| 10 |
> > is how extensive IPv6 support is. The man page suggests that only |
| 11 |
> > DHCPv6 is supported, but not stateless configuration. Not that my LAN |
| 12 |
> > has IPv6, but it'd be nice to know how future proof it is. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I don't recall whether you mentioned whether you're running stable or |
| 15 |
> ~arch, and I didn't see mention of the version of systemd you're running |
| 16 |
> now, but FWIW... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I'm arch, so running systemd-218. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I'm ~arch, but am still on systemd-218 (-r3), while 219 is latest ~arch. |
| 21 |
> This is for two reasons you may find interesting, one of which pertains |
| 22 |
> to networkd and thus to the quoted bit, above: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
[Snip two bug descriptions] |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Damn, that sounds bad. However, I'm running stable, so won't be affected. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I do agree with both you and Rich, though, that systemd really ought to have a |
| 29 |
stable branch. Their release workflow appears to me to be much like that of |
| 30 |
the linux kernel, only without the stable trees. Honestly, I would be |
| 31 |
surprised if they didn't have the developer resources to provide this. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Marc Joliet |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we |
| 37 |
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup |
Archives