Am Wed, 20 May 2015 10:44:58 +0000 (UTC)
schrieb Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>:

> Marc Joliet posted on Wed, 20 May 2015 10:01:13 +0200 as excerpted:
> 
> > A few days ago I finally got around to giving systemd-networkd a whirl,
> > as I said I would in the sub-thread started by Rich.  It turns out that
> > it fulfils the needs of my computers just fine, and has (together with
> > systemd-resolved) fully replaced netctl.  The only thing I'm not sure of
> > is how extensive IPv6 support is.  The man page suggests that only
> > DHCPv6 is supported, but not stateless configuration.  Not that my LAN
> > has IPv6, but it'd be nice to know how future proof it is.
> 
> I don't recall whether you mentioned whether you're running stable or 
> ~arch, and I didn't see mention of the version of systemd you're running 
> now, but FWIW...

I'm arch, so running systemd-218.

> I'm ~arch, but am still on systemd-218 (-r3), while 219 is latest ~arch.  
> This is for two reasons you may find interesting, one of which pertains 
> to networkd and thus to the quoted bit, above:
> 
[Snip two bug descriptions]

Damn, that sounds bad.  However, I'm running stable, so won't be affected.

I do agree with both you and Rich, though, that systemd really ought to have a
stable branch.  Their release workflow appears to me to be much like that of
the linux kernel, only without the stable trees.  Honestly, I would be
surprised if they didn't have the developer resources to provide this.

-- 
Marc Joliet
--
"People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup