danielmicay at gmail.com
Wed Mar 5 15:56:53 EST 2014
On 05/03/14 03:22 PM, arnaud gaboury wrote:
> 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:
> 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:
> 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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the arch-general