On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:36:48AM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:
> > 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.
Let's stop the mutual accusation part of this thread.
To avoid similar issues to arise again in the future, I wonder, would it
be feasible to implement something like Joss mentioned, i.e. some sort
of ifupdown blessed mechanism to enable/disable interfaces? The need of
doing so exists, NM is an example of that. Enabling people to do so
without _having_ to rely on text file fiddling would be an improvement
over the status quo.
(Arguably, this part of the discussion {c,s}ould be moved to the BTS.)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature