On Wednesday 25 March 2009 04:08:11 Tom Diehl wrote: > On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Chuck Anderson wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 03:31:09PM -0400, Tom Diehl wrote: > >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Colin Walters wrote: > >>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Quite a lot of people still don't want to use NetworkManager. It makes > >>>> little sense on a system which just sits there connected to a static > >>>> IP address 24/7. > >>> > >>> I think it does because it provides a useful networking API for other > >>> applications to consume. For example, answering the question "is > >>> there an active network link" was effectively impossible for app > >>> authors before. > >>> > >>> Also, in my opinion on a well-managed network if you want a fixed IP > >>> address, the right way to do it is MAC matching on the DHCP server, > >>> not client configuration. And NetworkManager works well in such a > >>> setup. > >> > >> Which I guess is OK if you are not setting up the system with the dhcp > >> server AND the box you are setting up has X installed. Does NM have a > >> command line interface? Not that I have seen but I could have missed it. > > > > NM supports static IP addresses configured in > > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX, or you could enable the > > keyfile plugin to use INI-like files to specify network configuration. > > If you set ONBOOT=yes, you don't even need to interact with NM in any > > way--it should just work. If you need to wait for the network before > > continuing the system boot up, set NETWORKWAIT=yes in > > /etc/sysconfig/network. > > Well maybe I mis-understood then. I thought > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX was going away. If that is > incorrect then I do not understand what all of the complaining is > about. Network-scripts are part of initscripts, s-c-n is only TUI/GUI configuration tool. So these scripts stays until something better is designed (I'm not sure how netcf - mentioned in this thread - works). If we have another tool that's able to edit configuration and use network- scripts then it's nonsense to have both doing same. So now the question is what's missing in NM edit connections (not in standalone NM) and if it is worth to add it there or let it alone in s-c-n or only let possibility to do it manually (and for servers it's my preferred way to have control over configuration). Jaroslav > > So basically, the no-X argument isn't convincing to me, because you > > can still do the basic stuff the old non-X way and it works. > > > > However, there is an argument for not getting rid of the old network > > scripts. The following are supported with network scripts but not NM > > yet: > > > > 1. IPv6 > > 2. bridges > > 3. interface aliases > > But the current scripts in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ do this now > If you say they are not going away then rpm -e NM* and you have what you > have today when you do not install X. Works for me for the last 15 years or > so. I will admit I do like nm on my laptop but NOT on my servers. > > Seriously, what am I missing? > > Regards, > > -- > Tom Diehl tdiehl@xxxxxxxxxxxx Spamtrap address mtd123@xxxxxxxxxxxx -- Jaroslav Řezník <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> Associate Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno Office: +420 532 294 275 Mobile: +420 731 455 332 Red Hat, Inc. http://cz.redhat.com/ -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
