On Sat, 02 Jul 2011 13:54:02 +0000, Curt wrote: > On 2011-07-02, Camaleón <noela...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Let’s just say that GDM is a good indicator of someone also using NM. >> >> A notebook or a portable system is more inclided to be an indicator for >> NM presence but not a DE or a display manager :-) >> >> I disable NM in all of my workstations that run GNOME. > > But you are not the op; you cannot assume the op has it disabled just > because you have it disabled, can you?
Nobody can. The idea of using SSH was indeed prsesented by the OP and I think is a good way to go in this case. Is what I would do. Of course, I would say "no" if the upgrading routine wants to update some packages that can lead to a network breakage regardless using NM or no... unless the ssh machine from where I'm upgrading sits next to the upgradable system. AFAIK, remote installations are supported by the installer. > In fact, in the context of the thread, there is no danger in assuming > the op is running NM whereas the contrary supposition, which you seemed > to have made in an earlier post, does involve the risk Claudius Hubig > pointed out to you (dropped network connection). We can assume whatever scenario we want because we are not there to upgrade the system :-) And of course, warning about NM can leave the system disconnected is a very good point (I didn't know NM can take that path...), so in the evnt this can happen and the OP is using NM, he can just turn it off before doing the upgrade and turn it on aftwewards. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.07.02.14.16...@gmail.com
