On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 15:19 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/21/2014 03:16 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> What Colin meant is that because of RHEL the NetworkManager team has
> done a lot of work for the Server case and NM is currently in a better
> position to be used for Servers.
No it's not
Without qualification I will treat this statement as meaningless and
ignore it.
> It has a funded team to work on it and to care for Server
specific
> cases.
Irrelevant to Fedora and perhaps RH should start re-allocating resources
to networkd
It is very relevant to Fedora which upstream projects are funded and for
what work, because Fedora does not do very much Upstream work, it is a
downstream from this POV.
I appreciate you like systemd-networkd however *that* doesn't matter.
Right now NM is a better technical choice.
> The systemd-networkd support, at the moment, is a limited tool
for some
> special cases and arguably should remain just that.
>
> So at the moment NM is the best technical choice for us too.
I thought the .next and wg effort was aiming for the "future" not basing
itself on to be obsoleted technology.
Well before you declare NM as "obsolete" you need to prove that it is.
Networkd is going to be providing the network infrastructure for
embedded/server
at the moment Networkd can be classified as "immature", so it can be the
basis for a Fedora Server. Once that situation will change we can
certainly revisit this.
Simo.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York