Hi, * Jordi Mallach (jo...@debian.org) [121113 10:29]: > [...]
First of all, thanks for your mail. I think it shows a good direction to move on (though I'm not convinced that not running n-m is more appropriate than not installing it, but well, YMMV.) > NetworkManager and static interface configurations > ================================================== > > Some of the concerns raised in the discussion revolve about the > possibility of NetworkManager starting in the middle of an upgrade and > taking over a statically configured interface in /etc/network/interfaces. > We don't think there's much discussion about that: if that happens, it's a > critical RC bug that needs to be fixed. The same already applies to > regressions network drivers in the kernel, libc6 or other basic core > components which could break a remote Debian dist-upgrade. Good. I think I can remember that happening times ago, but if you are convinced it doesn't happen anymore (and we all agree it would be RC), that's fine then. (JFTR, many if not all of the features about n-m being integrated into gnome wouldn't be relevant for remote systems.) > If the details of the technical implementation of this solution aren't > considered out of scope for this bug report and the CTTE, we are happy to > discuss a more detailed plan. I'm interessted in the details insofar as we need to be reasonably sure the intended solution works. If there is appropriate buy-in from the relevant maintainers, that would be enough. Now for wheezy, what do you propose short-term? Otherwise, we might be in a position where the only options are to demote the depends to recommends, or to enforce the current n-m configuration - both choices have consequences I won't like. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
