1 |
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@×××××.fr> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
[snip] |
4 |
|
5 |
> The way systemd services handle network whatever "network manager" you |
6 |
> enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. |
7 |
> Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even |
8 |
> possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is |
13 |
> actually what I would expect in systemd. |
14 |
|
15 |
Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read, |
16 |
they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you |
17 |
can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. |
18 |
|
19 |
But then you had to configure it yourself. |
20 |
|
21 |
[snip] |
22 |
|
23 |
>> And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism, |
24 |
>> and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually |
25 |
>> networkctl. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for |
28 |
> advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool. |
29 |
|
30 |
Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had |
31 |
nothing to do with each other. |
32 |
|
33 |
> The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on |
34 |
> its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice |
35 |
> grain-level dependencies. |
36 |
|
37 |
If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd |
38 |
maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the |
39 |
patches. |
40 |
|
41 |
Regards. |
42 |
-- |
43 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
44 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
45 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |