On 08.12.2010 01:32, Joey Hess wrote: > But even if that is the case, this still stands: > > a. Would you really want laptops' wireless interfaces to be > managed by ifupdown on a system with network-manager, by default?
No, but as I already mentioned imho this can only be handled half way sane in d-i to not write out any /e/n/i configuration in the first place if network-manager is being installed. How would you know the configuration is from d-i and not manually added by the administrator? How would you handle the case where ifupdown is indeed used to configure the wireless interface and there is no configuration for network-manager? Commenting out the /e/n/i configuration then would kill the network connection, which would be RC too. Before commenting out anything in /e/n/i I need to be sure NM will be able to bring up the device. This is really only possible to say for a interface configuration with dhcp and nothing else. So in a case like this I'd leave the decision to the administrator to the system. If he wants nm to manage the interface he can do so by commenting out/removing the configuration from /e/n/i. That's the only safe choice I see right now. I'm open though to a solution which addresses the above questions. > > b. squeeze is heavily frozen, and it is far, far to late in the release > cycle to be making big changes to either d-i or network-manager. > I know that, but I don't know what you want to imply with that or what you want me to reply on that. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
