[arch-projects] [initscripts][netcfg] deprecating advanced network functionality from initscripts

[Seblu]

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Dave Reisner <d at falconindy.com> wrote:
>>>> I'd vote for #2, keeping old timers (and me) happy. It seems like the
>>>> right line to draw so that someone using a "normal" desktop computer
>>>> setup, a VM, a VPS, etc. over Ethernet doesn't need to suddenly dive
>>>> into netcfg. This would eliminate a lot of code still: wi_up,
>>>> bond_up/down, bridge_up/down.
>>>
>>> I'll vote for #2 as well.
>>
>> Sounds like #2 it is then :-)
My heart beat for #1, my brain for #2.
I'm romantic, so i will vote (if i have one) for #1.

>>> Since this involves some amount of dramatic
>>> change, can I be annoying and harp on my iproute2 patchwork as well?
>>> Seems like it would be an appropriate time to merge, since we're
>>> breaking other things as well.
>>
>> Yes, that would be great! May I suggest that we no longer allow "open
>> ended" configuration variables, but do something like this:
>>
>> interface="eth0"
>> ip="192.168.0.10"
>> broadcast=""
>> netmask""
>> gateway=""
>>
>> (removing the ones that are uncommon to change, and adding anything I forgot)
>>
>> Only allow one interface, if ip is unset then use dhcp, and if the
>> other variables are unset use sensible standards. Parse the variables
>> for correctness to stop people from doing weird things.
>>
>> Does anyone object to this plan?
On this form, let time for people to read your mail and answer.
On the substance, as dan suggest, if we break network configuration in
initscripts ,as well do it completely by removing it.

>
> I do- making a system unbootable without a config change is never a
> good idea. My hope with selection number 2 was that no one using a
> "normal" config would have to change anything, e.g. those using
> headless systems would not have to tweak any dials.
>
> If I'm of the minority opinion here I will concede. I will also be
> sure to assign the "my system isn't responding and I can't SSH in" bug
> reports to you too though. :P
>
We have to think about default installer, which need to be adapted to
generate a right configuration if we change something.
And think, without a new release of it, all new setup computer, will
need a two times network configuration.

Maybe we should firstly deal with default installer to consider netcfg
as the default way to setup network. After this remove or limit
initscripts network roles?


-- 
Sébastien Luttringer
www.seblu.net