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

Bug#994875: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye

Package: connman
Version: 1.36-2.2
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org


recently I was upgrading a workstation running buster to bullseye from
remote.  This box had a fixed IP set in /etc/network/interfaces.  After
a rebooting I've "lost" the machine and I had to check the machine
physicaly.  It was asking for a totally different IP address via DHCP.
I found out that connman was installed on this machine due to lxde
metapackage Recommends.  After simply purging connman which is not used
anyway all went fine on this machine.

I would have loved to track this down in more detail but this
workstation is mission critical and there is no option to bother users
with fiddling around on the system that is now running as expected
again.  I'm fine with digging in the logs if you tell me what kind of
information is needed.

Kind regards

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 11.0
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (501, 'testing'), (50, 'buildd-unstable'), (50, 'unstable'), (5, 'experimental'), (1, 'buildd-experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de_DE:de
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages connman depends on:
ii  dbus                 1.12.20-2
ii  init-system-helpers  1.60
ii  iptables             1.8.7-1
ii  libc6                2.31-13
ii  libdbus-1-3          1.12.20-2
ii  libglib2.0-0         2.68.4-1
ii  libgnutls30          3.7.1-5
ii  libreadline8         8.1-1
ii  libxtables12         1.8.7-1
ii  lsb-base             11.1.0

Versions of packages connman recommends:
pn  bluez          <none>
pn  ofono          <none>
ii  wpasupplicant  2:2.9.0-21

Versions of packages connman suggests:
pn  connman-vpn  <none>

Reply to: