[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Proposal to add patches to netcfg (#682737)


On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:30:01AM +0300, Sorina - Gabriela Sandu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Sorina - Gabriela Sandu (sandu.sorina@gmail.com):
> >
> >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=682737
> >> [2] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/netcfg.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/people/sorina/write_config
> >> [3] http://swarm.cs.pub.ro/~sorina/debian/images/08_14_write_config.iso
> >> [4] http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/developers/settings-spec-08.html
> >
> >
> > Just as Phil Kern did for IPv6 support, could you move these changes
> > to feature/write_config? That would allow me to review debconf
> > templates without doing so in your "private" branch.
> Sure, here it is [1].
> [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=d-i/netcfg.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/feature/write_config

it seems that the refactoring for IPv6 broke this patch set in many ways.
Sorina, do you have time to do a replay of your patches against the current
netcfg master? If not, please speak up. If so, too. ;-)

Currently installation with network-manager is broken because of an additional
ifupdown option set in /etc/network/interfaces. Given that I introduced that I
get to keep the pieces, but obviously we should "just" merge your branch so
that network-manager can get rid of the naïve blacklisting script.

(Merging seems to be horrible. I think the most sane way is to replay the
patches through rebasing and then check for errors. The main change is that
most of the state got encapsulated into a "struct netcfg_interface".)

Kind regards
Philipp Kern

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: