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

Re: Bug#267908: ITP: netapplet - a GNOME applet for managing network connections



Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It turns out that the README is overstating things a bit. The code is
> Suse specific, but there's only three functions where this is relevant.
> I've put up code that works with Debian at
> http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/debian - at the moment it's only able to
> deal with interfaces of the iface form. Handling mapping stanzas looks
> more difficult.

I must say that I fear a repetition of our past experience with network
configuration tools ported from other distributions.  Webmin and
gnome-system-tools are useless (or worse) if /etc/network/interfaces
isn't dead simple.

Examples of bugs in webmin:
* I have many logical interfaces defined in /etc/network/interfaces, most
  of which are not in use at any given time.  Webmin displays their names
  in a list entitled
    Interfaces Activated at Boot Time
  They are not!
* The Routing and Gateways page displays the first 'gateway' option
  it finds in /etc/network/interfaces as the address for the
  "Routing configuration activated at boot time" and lists the
  logical interface name as a "Device".  Doesn't make any sense.

Examples of bugs in gnome-system-tools:
* My logical interfaces are all labelled 'Unknown interface type' in
  Network Settings|Connections.  The logical interface itself is
  labelled 'Device'.  Although one of these logical interfaces is
  active, in the sense that one of my physical interfaces is currently
  configured as that logical interface, its 'Active' button is not
  shown as depressed.
* In /etc/hosts I have
    127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
  but in Network Settings|Hosts is displayed
    127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost <my-hostname>
  Why?

In my opinion these tools should not be included in a stable release
but the prevailing view seems to be that these tools are acceptable
if they work in _some_ situations.
--
Thomas Hood



Reply to: