On 05/03/14 03:22 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
Hi,
I do not consider myself as a Linux expert, but rather an advanced user. I am running Arch for a few years now, with a clean setting environment and no major breakage.
I am a great fan of systemd functionallities, but I waste my time the past two weeks setting up a working network on a systemd-nspawn managed container with no success. My setup is rather basic : a static IP for the main machine (it seems the HOST term is not relevant) and a static IP for the container.
I have been reading/posting a lot, but as today didn't get a clean answer about netctl/systemd-networkd configuration files.
netctl isn't part of systemd or related to systemd-networkd. As far as I know, Arch is the only distribution using netctl.
Systemd is now ruling the Linux world, as more and more services are managed by it. This is not a bad thing, but in my opinion, there is a clear lack of good documentation/manuals/wiki. As it seems we are bound to learn systemd, I wish the systemd community could propose more documented manuals. This is not the case today.
You're welcome to contribute to the documentation. I think the documentation is a significant improvement over what existed for the previous stack of technologies systemd is replacing.
We shall now engage a serious rethinking of what part of systemd shall be in core, and what part stay in devel. A good example would be systemd-networkd. Honestly, this service needs supra intelligence or NASA tech engineer knowledge.
The systemd-networkd daemon is written by an Arch developer. It only recently landed upstream and is still going through rapid initial development. It's not intended to be a replacement for end user facing software like NetworkManager and ConnMan, but rather a simple/powerful tool for system administrators. The initial documentation certainly does exist, despite it being such a new addition: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-networkd.html
Lennart and his team are certainly very good dev and clever guys, but they clearly don't deliver good documentation. I remember that one of my main pain in Linux was to set up a working pulse audio service !
This isn't clear to me. For example, the documentation on unit files is quite extensive and spans many man pages: http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.unit.html
As a long time Linux user, I do not see any interest in setting up packages with no serious documentations.
You're certainly free to continue handling networking with netctl, ConnMan or NetworkManager.
I do not want my post to start a new flame as the one two years ago, but I am expecting some kind of community reaction against beta/broken/incomprehensible services.
I wish the Arch community could be able to separate the working/documented part of systemd from the dark/beta part only dedicated to a few elite.
Which part of systemd doesn't work? Do you even have an example of a unit type or user-facing utility that's not documented?