On Thursday, October 25, 2012 18:27:58, Michael Biebl wrote: > On 25.10.2012 22:47, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Jeremy Bicha (jbicha@ubuntu.com) [121025 18:51]: > >> On 25 October 2012 12:17, Don Armstrong <don@debian.org> wrote: > >>> That said, if I'm wrong, and you believe that there is a compromise > >>> which would resolve the concerns raised beyond those already presented > >>> (status quo with/without release notes), now would be the time to > >>> present it. > >> > >> My proposal is to: > >> 1. Add a paragraph to the Release Notes with the one line command > >> people should use if they don't want NetworkManager running: > >> "update-rc.d disable network-manager" > >> 2. And cases where that doesn't work are RC. > > > > How would that prevent startup of n-m during upgrades from stable to > > next-stable? (Which could already present issues, especially if the > > system is remote managed) > > I've been discussing with jordi today about this issue. > > One idea that came up was to check wether wicd is in use (or for that > matter ifupdown), and then show a debconf prompt explaining the > situation, and letting the user chose if he wants to take over network > management by NetworkManager. > It would work similar to how we currently handle multiple installed > display managers, like gdm3 or kdm (btw, gdm3 is currently a hard > depends of gnome-core). > If the users choses no, we could disable the service via update-rc.d > disable, so the invoke-rc.d later on in postinst would not start NM. > > This would also help in situations where users install both wicd and > network-manager by accident, which usually doesn't really work well > since e.g. both spawn their own instance of wpa_supplicant. > > A more detailed reply will follow soon. This is a good suggestion, and one which I think would work around all of the breakage concerns I raised on this issue. Thank you for putting in the effort for coming up with this option. A tweak I'd suggest considering would be to reverse the logic of the test of when to show the debconf prompt -- because there are several possible tools for setting up networking like iwconfig, manually using wpa_supplicant, commands in rc.local, etc, such that trying to test for all of the specific situations of when to show the option might be frustrating to track down competely. What we /do/ know is that there are two known situations where the user does /not/ need to see the choice to disable N-M, which is A) when N-M is already installed and running, or B) when N-M is installed but disabled via update-rc.d I think this effectively reduces down to checking if N-M is already installed and prompting if it's not. Well, unless you also want to test if it's running to take into consideration the possibility that N-M could be locally installed outside of package management, in which also installing N-M as a package would be... weird. ;-) The last thing I'm wondering about are the concerns from the Gnome team about whether empathy or evolution would know if you're online -- which in this case means if they do if N-M is installed but not running. If they do then this solution would have that as an advantage. If it doesn't then (at least on the surface) this solution seems similar to N-M being a Recommends in the meta- gnome package such that it doesn't have to be installed. [I'm not bringing this up as an argument against choosing this solution because I think the solution would work, but rather I'm trying to objectively evaluate what the effect this solution would have and how it compares to other possibilities.] Thanks again. -- Chris -- Chris Knadle Chris.Knadle@coredump.us
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.