On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:29 +0100, "Xavier Chantry" <chantry.xavier@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Pierre Schmitz <pierre@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 2. März 2010 09:39:19 schrieb Thomas Bächler: > >> Personally, I would like to > >> remove everything but basic ethernet support from initscripts (that > >> would also include removing wireless, but some people were too strictly > >> against that). What I am saying is, investing time into integrating more > >> network stuff into initscripts is time wasted, as complex setups like > >> bonding or bridging can be much better implemented in netcfg and the > >> work should be spent on that instead. > > > > I second this. We should concentrate on netcfg for network setup in future. > > Initscripts will just get too complicated (e.g. they don't support ipv& atm) > > while the same functionality is already provided by another package n core. > > > > I would even completely remove the network and netfs deamon from initscripts; > > but I guess there wont be much support for this. :-) > > > > I was saying that already back in 2007, took me just one minute to > find the post :) > http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=274397#p274397 > > Here is what iphitus answered : > "Profiles came after INTERFACES, and INTERFACES will definitely not be > removed. Many people still find them useful, particularly on desktops > with static configurations - myself even. I do intend to increase the > code share between these two, as there's a lot of duplication already, > but that'll come later." > Still think that too, though code-share is not really practical now. rc.d/network has it's place as it is so simple - I still use it on my desktop. I agree with restraining rc.d/network. The wireless support is very outdated already. Bridging/bonding can lead to complexities that rc.d/network is too simple to handle, which is reflected in some of the bug reports.
