Hello, On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:23:25 +0200 Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org> wrote: > Le samedi 16 juin 2012 à 19:38 +0200, Andrew Shadura a écrit : > > Also, it's network-manager who tries to be a replacement somehow > > compatible with ifupdown, not vice versa, so NM maintainers should > > take care of their package to do things are they're supposed to be > > done in a compatible way. > NM is not compatible with ifupdown and does not try to be. > This is *precisely* why the /e/n/i lines are commented out by > nm.postinst. When I say 'compatible' I don't mean NM supports everything ifupdown does (which it certainly doesn't and doesn't try to), I mean it is compatible in that it at least doesn't break ifupdown. > It sounds to me that you have broken this behavior on purpose, where > you could instead have added an interface to make disabling an > interface more convenient than sed hackery (as mandated by policy). No. Also I'd like to remind you that this sed hackery has already been done by NM maintainers without much discussions on how to make it better. -- WBR, Andrew
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature