On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 17:15 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Is NM really required for "basic" networking? If so, you probably don't > > need to specify some of the rest (such as dhclient) manually. NM brings > > a bunch of deps I believe. > > So far everything works without, and I think we should endevor to keep that > true. I think this is similar to the firewalld issue in that the basic theory here is that, look, NetworkManager is the way, the truth and the light: it's supposed to be the One True Networking System, and we're just keeping the network service around because there's some stuff it does that NM doesn't do yet. This logic is getting a tad stretched because we've been rolling with it for several years at this point, but AIUI this is still the party line and the reason NetworkManager is in core. In theory the idea is not that we provide, actively maintain and support both NM and the network service, but that we want to only provide, maintain and support NM, and we're keeping the legacy 'network service' stuff around only until NM is done. It might be worth re-evaluating whether that's realistic any more, though, and whether we're _really_ committed to finally replacing network with NM in some kind of reasonable timeframe. (It's also a possibility of course that I'm misunderstanding and that we do intend to provide and support 'network' for the foreseeable future, in which case I'd agree it should be in @core and NM should be only in @standard). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
