On 9/30/20 10:26 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > There are not a ton of advantages for splitting it, since it's only a > couple of binaries averaging 2MB with a few unit files. Given that we > require it for default NetworkManager configurations now, there's not > a lot of value in making that complicated. Splitting has a cost too, > in the form of extra metadata, upgrade paths, etc. I think one more subpackage can won't break anything. Metadata for it is quite small. Is extra metadata and upgrade path more than one time only? Can you specify what else would be required, but Recommends: systemd-networkd in NetworkManager package? As long as disabled resolved is considered supported variant, it should not really differ. Can you be more specific about requirements? > > Moreover, *all* Fedora variants use NetworkManager. *ALL* OSTree > variants, as shipped today, *MUST* use NetworkManager. > NetworkManager's configuration will use resolved as a local resolver. > Anything baked into an OSTree cannot be removed anyway. All non-OSTree Fedora variants can uninstall NetworkManager just fine, they use *NetworkManager by default*. We would like systemd-resolved uninstallable the same way. Because it is not the best available resolver and has long standing bugs, some of them not properly addressed. Especially to ensure systemd-resolved would not become the only one supported variant, just a default one. Is dnsmasq or unbound support considered deprecated? NetworkManager != systemd-resolved. I think NetworkManager should just Recommend: systemd-resolved. As long as [main] dns=dnsmasq or dns=unbound is still supported by NetworkManager, I think alternatives must be uninstallable. Both support split-DNS, just have missing NetworkManager configuration layer. I am dnsmasq maintainer and unbound comaintainer and I am willing to help with its implementation. I just need to know way to push information from NM to them. > > And like it or not, all our legacy network configuration mechanisms > are deprecated and *will be removed eventually*. > > Literally the only reason networkd was split out was because Fedora > CoreOS was chainsawing it out at image build time and making it > impossible for people to use it. To be frank, I do not want more > permutations this low in the stack. It makes life incredibly difficult > for figuring out working network setups. > > My reply was aimed at Peter saying he'd like to not ship resolved, and > I'm saying that we should *not* do that, because it makes things even > harder and more complicated. Things are already hard with name resolution. They are not going better with systemd upstream ignoring research of DNS specialists and instead pushing its own 'correct' ideas. And that precisely what we demand. If disabling systemd-resolved should work and be tested, it should be the same with resolved not installed. We just fear waiving disabled resolved as unsupported a bit later. -- Petr Menšík Software Engineer Red Hat, http://www.redhat.com/ email: pemensik@xxxxxxxxxx PGP: DFCF908DB7C87E8E529925BC4931CA5B6C9FC5CB
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
