Re: [gentoo-user] Re: technical review of systemd

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Feb 25, 2014 10:40 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht <nsebrecht@×××××.fr>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > The way systemd services handle network whatever "network manager" you
> > enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers.
> > Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even
> > possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC.
> >
> > Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here.
> >
> > The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is
> > actually what I would expect in systemd.
>
> Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read,
> they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you
> can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever.
>
> But then you had to configure it yourself.
>
> [snip]
>
> >> And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism,
> >> and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually
> >> networkctl.
> >
> > Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for
> > advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool.
>
> Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had
> nothing to do with each other.
>
> > The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on
> > its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice
> > grain-level dependencies.
>
> If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd
> maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the
> patches.

BTW, here is an overview of networkd by its author:

https://coreos.com/blog/intro-to-systemd-networkd/

Regards.