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

Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?



Hi Andreas,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:03:57AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:37:45AM +0100, Klaus Knopper wrote:
> > > I have not tested but wouldn't it be sufficient to let a relevant
> > > metapackage simply conflict with network-manager?  From my understanding
> > > the conflict should be "stronger" than recommends (if not I'd consider
> > > it a bug) and so apt-get / aptitude should leave out the conflicting
> > > package.
> > 
> > Removing NetworkManager takes away the possibility of easy network
> > configuration,
> 
> I did not discussed the question whether it makes sense to remove
> NetworkManager or not.  I was just addressing the issue that you could
> probably override the "Recommends is installed by default" issue by
> properly choosen "Conflicts".

My comment was not specifically meant as reply to YOUR comment, sorry if
you mistook it for that. Anyways, I should have answered to the toplevel
posting, since I just wanted to add my thoughs about generally removing
NetworkManager. :-)

> > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between
> > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager
> > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces,
> 
> If this solution works better I'd be in favour of it.

It works "different". My proposal suggests to let NetworkManager handle
the client configuration by handling /etc/network/interfaces, rather
than removing NetworkManager and let ifup do the job. Both have their
advantages and disadvantages. NetworkManager is maybe a little easier
and more verbose from the user perspective.

> > This may be a way of keeping NetworkManager intact in Skolelinux,
> > instead of removing it completely. But it also means that you need
> > another config file change, since "managed=false" is NetworkManagers
> > default in Debian.
> 
> ... which is probably a bad setting anyway and should be replaced by a
> debconf question.

Actually yes, I even thing that "managed=true" is a better default.
Works nicely for certain Debian derivates. ;-)

Regards
-Klaus


Reply to: