dhcpcd-discuss

On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Roy Marples <roy@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27/05/2014 10:55, Jouke Witteveen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Would netctl be happy with this?
>>>>
>>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -4 eth0
>>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -6 eth0
>>>>
>>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -4 -x eth0
>>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -6 -x eth0
>>>>
>>>> Would create the pidfiles:
>>>> /var/run/dhcpcd-eth0.pid
>>>> /var/run/dhcpcd-eth0.6.pid
>>>>
>>>> That would be fairly trivial to implement.
>>>> Let me know
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be very nice!
>>>
>>> What would happen in this case?
>>>
>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -4 eth0
>>> dhcpcd --per-protocol -6 eth0
>>> dhcpcd -x eth0
>>>
>>> I'd say it would be best to either kill both or kill none and error.
>>> This is not relevant for netctl, but could be relevant for someone
>>> else out there.
>>
>>
>> I still like the idea of having --per-protocol. Here's some more thoughts.
>> `dhcpcd --per-protocol eth0` should probably be equivalent to `dhcpcd
>> --per-protocol -4 eth0; dhcpcd --per-protocol -6 eth0`, which suggests
>> we could have `dhcpcd --per-protocol -x eth0`, killing both instances.
>> In that case `dhcpcd -x eth0` should probably do nothing and error.
>> Equivalently, this means when we started dhcpcd using simply `dhcpcd
>> eth0`, that attempting `dhcpcd --per-protocol -x eth0` should do
>> nothing and error.
>
>
> I've been thinking that maybe we're over thinking this and drop the
> --per-protocol idea to make -4 and -6 protocol exclusive anyway.

I don't know why this was overlooked earlier, but indeed it makes a
lot of sense! You do need `-x -4` and `-x -6` functionality and decide
what `-x` would do when two instances are running. When a `-6`
instance is running, a "two prototcols, one instance"-instance should
not be able to start. Also `-4 -6` could come to mean "start both, but
as two instances". Just a few thoughts. Anyway, I don't see why `-4`
and `-6` would not use different pid files.

- Jouke