Re: network service removed in Fedora 40 without a Change proposal(?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2024-04-12 at 19:03 -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:41 PM Adam Williamson
> <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > Michel Lind just prompted me to notice that the 'network' service
> > appears to have been removed from initscripts in Fedora 40+. This
> > change seems to have landed in February without any fanfare -
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/initscripts/c/414789841de9247310ebfd37cd043b75963f7cac?branch=rawhide
> > . There is no Change for it, AFAICS.
> > 
> > This does not appear to be driven by upstream removing it, because the
> > commit apparently specifically adds 'NO_NETWORK_SCRIPTS=true' to remove
> > it from the build. Presumably without that, it would still be built.
> > 
> > I'm a bit worried about this arriving unannounced and apparently mostly
> > unnoticed. There *are* still reasons to use the network service; I
> > still use it on the openQA worker hosts, for instance, because there is
> > integration between openvswitch and the legacy network service, but no
> > integration between openvswitch and NetworkManager. I also use an ifup-
> > pre-local script to pre-create tap devices; NetworkManager apparently
> > does not support this natively. There's a suggested workaround at
> > https://access.redhat.com/solutions/6900331 , which is helpful, but
> > still, it's a significant change if you're using that mechanism.
> > 
> > As a user of this service, I would've expected more of a heads-up that
> > it was going away; if I hadn't happened to catch Michel's message I
> > might have upgraded openQA staging to F40 immediately on release (as I
> > usually do) and been rather surprised that the network setup stopped
> > working. I'm sure I will find a way to re-engineer this rather
> > complicated network setup without network.service, but a bit more of a
> > heads up would have been nice.
> > 
> > Should this have been a Change? How worried are we about it going out
> > in Fedora 40 without having been through the Change process?
> 
> This should have been an announced Change. This is a significant
> change with wide impact.

I've filed a bug, proposed it as a blocker, and filed a FESCo ticket
asking FESCo to designate the bug as a blocker.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2274830
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3196
-- 
Adam Williamson (he/him/his)
Fedora QA
Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @adamw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www.happyassassin.net



--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux