On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 05:06:38PM -0700, Cameron Norman wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > > Simon McVittie wrote: > >> One thing that an adopter could very usefully do with ifupdown would be > >> to coordinate with the systemd maintainers on moving net.agent > >> (Debian-specific udev glue to invoke ifupdown) from udev into ifupdown, > >> so that it does not need to be present at all on systems that rely on a > >> non-ifupdown tool like NM. That would also mean that the ifupdown > >> maintainer would be free to alter the precise details of how net.agent > >> and ifupdown interact, since they would now control both ends of the "API". > > > > I'd *love* to see that happen. I've seen discussions about that, and > > they always seemed to stall out. > > Then why not submit patches to ifupdown? It is not like it offers any > benefit to ifupdown users, so it is not really something the ifupdown > maintainer would be inclined to go out of his/her way to accomplish. > You can QA upload it really easily now too.
Because I have no interest in developing ifupdown; I'd just like to see net.agent no longer run on systems *without* ifupdown. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150528002956.GC21013@x
