On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Josh Triplett <j...@joshtriplett.org> wrote: > 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.
Well then you just explained why the discussions seem to stall out: people who will benefit (i.e. not ifupdown maintainers/users) have no interest in touching ifupdown at all (at least it seems so). -- Cameron Norman -- 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/calzwfrkjwp4i5mfhjjk_cwhzvlhekhz-pteqr9ejgkpv5ur...@mail.gmail.com
