On Fri, 2012-06-29 at 13:24 +0200, Radek Vykydal wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this proposition is mainly for Will. Currently we create missing
> default ifcfg files
> (i.e. file of devices not activated in dracut or configured by
> kickstart) in anaconda:
[...]
> This has a problem that NetworkManager activates default connections
> for devices lacking ifcfg file which differs from behaviour in rhel6
> and
> I think we don't want to start to do this.
Why not? Why is it our job to maintain policy for when to start network
interfaces? And why should that policy differ from the normal system?
Here's a general rule I'm trying to follow for anaconda:
Unless there is an *explicit, documented* use case that requires
otherwise, we should use the system defaults.
When the system defaults conflict with current anaconda behavior, yes,
that will require behavior changes. But *not all behavior changes are
bugs*.
If there's a reason that we *need* to have a *completely different*
policy for unconfigured network interfaces inside anaconda from the
normal system, that's fine - let's talk about those use cases and figure
out the best thing to do.
> Also I'd like to bring back functionality of --activate option,
> but activation of additional devices could be done in anaconda
> kickstart processing, even though doing that in dracut might be
> as simple as writing ONBOOT=yes by dracut/ks to ifcfg file.
..or we could add a --no-activate option to override the system default
behavior, if the user so chooses?
-w
_______________________________________________
Anaconda-devel-list mailing list
Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
