Daniel is right. netctl and systemd-networkd are two different things. 2014-03-05 17:56 GMT-03:00 Daniel Micay <danielmicay@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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? > >
