[arch-general] systemd-nspawn/systemd-networkd/

[Mario Rugiero]

Daniel is right. netctl and systemd-networkd are two different things.


2014-03-05 17:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com>:

> 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?
>
>