On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 14:06 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > Hence, the RFE -- a mode which sets up the above, and then goes away. > > I had not seen that mode (or a request for it). That would be nice. In > a perfect world (hah!), replacing "ifup" and "ifdown" with scripts that > just make the appropriate "nmcli" (or whatever) calls would be awesome, > as long as NM supports all the old functionality. nmcli doesn't work unless NM is running, since it talks to NM to do stuff, so it would be incompatible with NM setting things up and quitting. > > There are significant advantages to having a single code path for network > > configuration on the system -- easier support, simpler documenation, easier > > administration between multiple systems, easier development of new > > distribution features overall. But the condition you give is very important > > too -- that's why the "traditional" system is still there in parallel right > > now. > > That would be cool; I understand reducing methods reduces support > overhead. Please don't take my email as throwing stones; I was trying > to _not_ do that, just point out why in some situations sysadmins > sometimes avoid NM. And we'd love to understand those situations and see what we can do to make sysadmins happier with NM. Including things like cooperating with changes made to interfaces underneath NM, server-type config options (locking connections via interface name, manual config updates instead of watching files, not creating default DHCP connections for ethernet interfaces, etc). Dan > I understand that the old-style network scripts are a maze of twisty > little passages, all different, and trying to replace all the > functionality that people use is not trivial. > -- > Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
