Re: Q: Gnome network odd
Max Nikulin writes: > On 05/02/2024 12:08, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: >> On Sun, 2024-02-04 at 13:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: >>> So it would appear that your question is exactly as in the reference >>> you quoted, that ifupdown was configuring wlp4s0 when /w/n/i was >>> in place, resulting in NM displaying a question mark. >> Thank you for confirming that this is not a bug. > > I have no idea concerning GNOME in sid, but a KDE applet from > nm-plasma in bookworm is able to react to commands > > ip link set enp0s2 down > ip link set enp0s2 up > > in a VM when the only interface (besides lo) is managed by > ifupdown. When the interface is down, the icon changed to a dimmed one > with a red "x". > > I have not figured out how to determine state using nmcli or through > various objects reported by > > busctl tree org.freedesktop.NetworkManager > > E.g. nm-online always reports success. It might be some fallback in > the KDE applet. Depending on that it is either a bug or not in the > GNOME applet. > > P.S. > > nmcli dev > DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION > lo loopback connected (externally) lo > enp0s2 ethernet unmanaged -- > > nmcli con > NAME UUID TYPE DEVICE > lo18c86315-d7f9-417e-ab2c-c131803b4c0b loopback lo > > nm-online ; echo $? > Connecting... 30s [online] > 0 > Hellow Max! Actuallu i have a weak technical background. So i don't know well your professional analyze. Just i use default values by automatic. Anyway i attach some screenshot more. As you see to me: soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ ls -l /etc/network/ total 24 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 18 13:29 if-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Feb 18 13:29 if-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ lsb_release -a No LSB modules are available. Distributor ID: Debian Description:Debian GNU/Linux trixie/sid Release:n/a Codename: trixie soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ nmcli dev DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION wlp4s0 wifi connected V30_3982 lo loopback connected (externally) lo enp2s0 ethernet unavailable -- soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ nmcli con NAMEUUID TYPE DEVICE V30_3982d5a7a052-5756-4ab9-85b5-a4576b5d4e4d wifi wlp4s0 lo 6b998a36-ea29-4d65-baab-d6d3a8ef loopback lo Wired connection 1 77a0f34e-c572-38c7-b28d-4f08a33be077 ethernet -- soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ ping -c 3 google.com. PING google.com. (2404:6800:400a:804::200e) 56 data bytes 64 bytes from kix06s10-in-x0e.1e100.net (2404:6800:400a:804::200e): icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=211 ms 64 bytes from kix06s10-in-x0e.1e100.net (2404:6800:400a:804::200e): icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=121 ms 64 bytes from kix06s10-in-x0e.1e100.net (2404:6800:400a:804::200e): icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=255 ms --- google.com. ping statistics --- 3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2004ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 121.185/195.563/254.546/55.522 ms soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ echo "I am using GNOME Debian (sid) Thank you Max ^^^" I am using GNOME Debian (sid) Thank you Max ^^^ soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:~$ date Sun Feb 25 01:47:11 PM KST 2024 V30_3982 is LG Smartphone (WiFi HotSpot), for the record. Sincerely, Byunghee from South Korea -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))// signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On 05/02/2024 12:08, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: On Sun, 2024-02-04 at 13:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: So it would appear that your question is exactly as in the reference you quoted, that ifupdown was configuring wlp4s0 when /w/n/i was in place, resulting in NM displaying a question mark. Thank you for confirming that this is not a bug. I have no idea concerning GNOME in sid, but a KDE applet from nm-plasma in bookworm is able to react to commands ip link set enp0s2 down ip link set enp0s2 up in a VM when the only interface (besides lo) is managed by ifupdown. When the interface is down, the icon changed to a dimmed one with a red "x". I have not figured out how to determine state using nmcli or through various objects reported by busctl tree org.freedesktop.NetworkManager E.g. nm-online always reports success. It might be some fallback in the KDE applet. Depending on that it is either a bug or not in the GNOME applet. P.S. nmcli dev DEVICE TYPE STATE CONNECTION lo loopback connected (externally) lo enp0s2 ethernet unmanaged -- nmcli con NAME UUID TYPE DEVICE lo18c86315-d7f9-417e-ab2c-c131803b4c0b loopback lo nm-online ; echo $? Connecting... 30s [online] 0
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
Hellow David, On Sun, 2024-02-04 at 13:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Sun 04 Feb 2024 at 13:57:13 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 10:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 02 Feb 2024 at 07:37:34 (+), Tixy wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 07:05:55 (+), Tixy wrote: > > > > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config > > > > > > into > > > > > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance > > > > > > NetworkManager would > > > > > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would > > > > > > take over. > > > > > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown > > > > > > config?) > > > > > > > > > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown > > > > > plugin > > > > > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm > > > > > assuming the > > > > > OP has not installed that in their sleep. > > > > > > > > They wouldn't need to because it looks like it's shipped with > > > > the main > > > > network-manage package which contains various files with > > > > 'plugin' in > > > > their name, including libnm-settings-plugin-ifupdown.so. > > > > > > What I said was unlikely is that an option in ifupdown's > > > configuration, > > > /e/n/i, would control NM's behaviour. It's the mere mention of > > > the > > > interface there, as in iface enp5s0 inet dhcp that makes > > > ifupdown > > > control it, and makes NM back off, AIUI. > > > > > > > As we've seen from the OPs latest reply, the plugin is > > > > configured to > > > > not manage interfaces. > > > > > > Right, and so the default NM configuration (ifupdown plugin > > > present, > > > news to me) and [ifupdown] // managed=false in the .conf > > > file, > > > means that NM should not, by default, configure any interface > > > mentioned in /e/n/i. In the OP's case, the original /e/n/i: > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > > > is big enough to hold a typical lo+eth+wlan configuration, which > > > we haven't seen yet. > > > > Sorry for late, David! > > That's the beauty of mailing lists: it just doesn't matter. > > > root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# cat interfaces.orig > > # This file describes the network interfaces available on your > > system > > # and how to activate them. For more information, see > > interfaces(5). > > > > source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* > > > > # The loopback network interface > > auto lo > > iface lo inet loopback > > > > # The primary network interface > > allow-hotplug wlp4s0 > > iface wlp4s0 inet dhcp > > # wireless-* options are implemented by the wireless-tools > > package > > wireless-mode managed > > wireless-essid V30_3982 > > root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# date > > So it would appear that your question is exactly as in the reference > you quoted, that ifupdown was configuring wlp4s0 when /w/n/i was > in place, resulting in NM displaying a question mark. Now you've > removed it, NM has taken over. That's just as in the first answer > (Stephen Kitt Jul 23, 2018 7:00), except for the minor detail that > Kitt mentions one should down the interface before moving /e/n/i > if one wants to make the change cleanly, without rebooting. > > (Frequently, people forget that /e/n/i is reread by ifupdown > whenever you run its binaries; that's different from how many > other programs treat their configuration files.) > > > 1. I have never touched the inside of that file. > > 2. I guess the real original file was from Debian 12. > > Not knowing the history of your installation, I wouldn't like > to guess exactly how NM and ifupdown arrived at your earlier > situation. But to answer the question posed in your OP, > there's no bug here—just two wifi configuration methods > being prioritised in accordance with their design. > > Cheers, > David. Thank you for confirming that this is not a bug. And thank you to Max and Tixy for participating in this discussion. I'm happy now. Also Debian Sid are good for desktop, i think. Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Sun 04 Feb 2024 at 13:57:13 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 10:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 02 Feb 2024 at 07:37:34 (+), Tixy wrote: > > > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 07:05:55 (+), Tixy wrote: > > > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > > > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager would > > > > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take over. > > > > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) > > > > > > > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin > > > > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the > > > > OP has not installed that in their sleep. > > > > > > They wouldn't need to because it looks like it's shipped with the main > > > network-manage package which contains various files with 'plugin' in > > > their name, including libnm-settings-plugin-ifupdown.so. > > > > What I said was unlikely is that an option in ifupdown's configuration, > > /e/n/i, would control NM's behaviour. It's the mere mention of the > > interface there, as in iface enp5s0 inet dhcp that makes ifupdown > > control it, and makes NM back off, AIUI. > > > > > As we've seen from the OPs latest reply, the plugin is configured to > > > not manage interfaces. > > > > Right, and so the default NM configuration (ifupdown plugin present, > > news to me) and [ifupdown] // managed=false in the .conf file, > > means that NM should not, by default, configure any interface > > mentioned in /e/n/i. In the OP's case, the original /e/n/i: > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > > is big enough to hold a typical lo+eth+wlan configuration, which > > we haven't seen yet. > > Sorry for late, David! That's the beauty of mailing lists: it just doesn't matter. > root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# cat interfaces.orig > # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system > # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). > > source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* > > # The loopback network interface > auto lo > iface lo inet loopback > > # The primary network interface > allow-hotplug wlp4s0 > iface wlp4s0 inet dhcp > # wireless-* options are implemented by the wireless-tools > package > wireless-mode managed > wireless-essid V30_3982 > root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# date So it would appear that your question is exactly as in the reference you quoted, that ifupdown was configuring wlp4s0 when /w/n/i was in place, resulting in NM displaying a question mark. Now you've removed it, NM has taken over. That's just as in the first answer (Stephen Kitt Jul 23, 2018 7:00), except for the minor detail that Kitt mentions one should down the interface before moving /e/n/i if one wants to make the change cleanly, without rebooting. (Frequently, people forget that /e/n/i is reread by ifupdown whenever you run its binaries; that's different from how many other programs treat their configuration files.) > 1. I have never touched the inside of that file. > 2. I guess the real original file was from Debian 12. Not knowing the history of your installation, I wouldn't like to guess exactly how NM and ifupdown arrived at your earlier situation. But to answer the question posed in your OP, there's no bug here—just two wifi configuration methods being prioritised in accordance with their design. Cheers, David.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Fri, 2024-02-02 at 10:41 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 02 Feb 2024 at 07:37:34 (+), Tixy wrote: > > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance > > > > NetworkManager > > > > would > > > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take > > > > over. > > > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown > > > > config?) > > > > > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown > > > plugin > > > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming > > > the > > > OP has not installed that in their sleep. > > > > They wouldn't need to because it looks like it's shipped with the > > main > > network-manage package which contains various files with 'plugin' > > in > > their name, including libnm-settings-plugin-ifupdown.so. > > What I said was unlikely is that an option in ifupdown's > configuration, > /e/n/i, would control NM's behaviour. It's the mere mention of the > interface there, as in iface enp5s0 inet dhcp that makes ifupdown > control it, and makes NM back off, AIUI. > > > As we've seen from the OPs latest reply, the plugin is configured > > to > > not manage interfaces. > > Right, and so the default NM configuration (ifupdown plugin present, > news to me) and [ifupdown] // managed=false in the .conf file, > means that NM should not, by default, configure any interface > mentioned in /e/n/i. In the OP's case, the original /e/n/i: > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > is big enough to hold a typical lo+eth+wlan configuration, which > we haven't seen yet. Sorry for late, David! Still i am on Debian Sid. And all Gnome network works very well. And here is the detail contents of /e/n/i file: root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# ls -l total 24 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# cat interfaces.orig # This file describes the network interfaces available on your system # and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5). source /etc/network/interfaces.d/* # The loopback network interface auto lo iface lo inet loopback # The primary network interface allow-hotplug wlp4s0 iface wlp4s0 inet dhcp # wireless-* options are implemented by the wireless-tools package wireless-mode managed wireless-essid V30_3982 root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# date Sun Feb 4 13:48:14 KST 2024 root@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network# NOTE: 1. I have never touched the inside of that file. 2. I guess the real original file was from Debian 12. Thanks!!! Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Fri 02 Feb 2024 at 07:37:34 (+), Tixy wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager > > > would > > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take > > > over. > > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) > > > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin > > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the > > OP has not installed that in their sleep. > > They wouldn't need to because it looks like it's shipped with the main > network-manage package which contains various files with 'plugin' in > their name, including libnm-settings-plugin-ifupdown.so. What I said was unlikely is that an option in ifupdown's configuration, /e/n/i, would control NM's behaviour. It's the mere mention of the interface there, as in iface enp5s0 inet dhcp that makes ifupdown control it, and makes NM back off, AIUI. > As we've seen from the OPs latest reply, the plugin is configured to > not manage interfaces. Right, and so the default NM configuration (ifupdown plugin present, news to me) and [ifupdown] // managed=false in the .conf file, means that NM should not, by default, configure any interface mentioned in /e/n/i. In the OP's case, the original /e/n/i: -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig is big enough to hold a typical lo+eth+wlan configuration, which we haven't seen yet. Cheers, David.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager > > would > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take > > over. > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the > OP has not installed that in their sleep. They wouldn't need to because it looks like it's shipped with the main network-manage package which contains various files with 'plugin' in their name, including libnm-settings-plugin-ifupdown.so. As we've seen from the OPs latest reply, the plugin is configured to not manage interfaces. -- Tixy
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Fri 02 Feb 2024 at 01:18:51 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 07:05:55 (+), Tixy wrote: > > > On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 23:49 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > I would tend to think that: > > > > > > > > . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you don't > > > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > > > > > . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you do > > > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > > > > > . It shouldn't do both. > > > > > > My experience, admittedly from a few releases ago, is that ifupdown is > > > always installed but that the installer doesn't populate it's config > > > files with the found network interfaces, only the loopback interface. > > > > AIUI that would be normal behaviour when the DE installs its own > > choice of package to handle the network. > > > > But it's also what happens when you install over wifi and don't > > select a DE: the wifi configuration is removed as the last step > > in the installation process. It's a (mis)feature/bug that's been > > discussed for years. > > > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager would > > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take over. > > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) > > > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin > > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the > > OP has not installed that in their sleep. Max's request for printing > > the configuration could confirm that. > > For now it works all. And still i'm on Debian Sid. Just i attach some > results from Max's request: [ … ] > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ apt list '~i~nnetwork-manager' > Listing... Done That doesn't reveal whether ifupdown is installed. [ … ] > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ /usr/sbin/NetworkManager --print-config > # NetworkManager configuration: /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf [ … ] > plugins=ifupdown,keyfile [ … ] > [ifupdown] > managed=false so this applies: "managed "If set to false, then any interface listed in /etc/network/interfaces will be ignored by NetworkManager. Remember that NetworkManager controls the default route, so because the interface is ignored, NetworkManager may assign the default route to some other interface." [ … ] > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ ls -l > [ … ] > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig We need to see the contents of that file (with any passwords redacted). Its size looks large enough to contain loopback, ethernet and wireless interface configurations. This could mean that ifupdown was giving you your connectivity when NM was displaying a question mark. Cheers, David.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
Hellow David, On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 22:12 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 07:05:55 (+), Tixy wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 23:49 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > I would tend to think that: > > > > > > . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you > > > don't > > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > > > . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you > > > do > > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > > > . It shouldn't do both. > > > > > > > My experience, admittedly from a few releases ago, is that ifupdown > > is > > always installed but that the installer doesn't populate it's > > config > > files with the found network interfaces, only the loopback > > interface. > > AIUI that would be normal behaviour when the DE installs its own > choice of package to handle the network. > > But it's also what happens when you install over wifi and don't > select a DE: the wifi configuration is removed as the last step > in the installation process. It's a (mis)feature/bug that's been > discussed for years. > > > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager > > would > > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take > > over. > > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) > > That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin > that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the > OP has not installed that in their sleep. Max's request for printing > the configuration could confirm that. > For now it works all. And still i'm on Debian Sid. Just i attach some results from Max's request: soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ LANG=C.UTF-8 soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ date Fri Feb 2 01:04:53 KST 2024 soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ ls -l total 24 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ apt list '~i~nnetwork-manager' Listing... Done network-manager-config-connectivity-debian/unstable,now 1.44.2-7 all [installed] network-manager-dev/unstable,now 1.44.2-7 all [installed] network-manager-fortisslvpn-gnome/unstable,now 1.4.0-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-fortisslvpn/unstable,now 1.4.0-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-gnome/unstable,now 1.34.0-2 amd64 [installed] network-manager-iodine-gnome/unstable,now 1.2.0-3.3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-iodine/unstable,now 1.2.0-3.3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-l2tp-gnome/unstable,now 1.20.10-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-l2tp/unstable,now 1.20.10-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-openconnect-gnome/unstable,now 1.2.10-3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-openconnect/unstable,now 1.2.10-3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-openvpn-gnome/unstable,now 1.10.2-4 amd64 [installed] network-manager-openvpn/unstable,now 1.10.2-4 amd64 [installed] network-manager-pptp-gnome/unstable,now 1.2.12-3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-pptp/unstable,now 1.2.12-3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-ssh-gnome/unstable,now 1.2.11-1.1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-ssh/unstable,now 1.2.11-1.1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-sstp-gnome/unstable,now 1.3.2-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-sstp/unstable,now 1.3.2-1 amd64 [installed] network-manager-strongswan/unstable,now 1.6.0-3 amd64 [installed] network-manager-vpnc-gnome/unstable,now 1.2.8-7 amd64 [installed] network-manager-vpnc/unstable,now 1.2.8-7 amd64 [installed] network-manager/unstable,now 1.44.2-7 amd64 [installed] soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ /usr/sbin/NetworkManager --print- config # NetworkManager configuration: /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf (lib: 20-connectivity-debian.conf, no-mac-addr-change.conf) [main] # rc-manager= # migrate-ifcfg-rh=false # auth-polkit=true # dhcp=internal # iwd-config-path= plugins=ifupdown,keyfile configure-and-quit=no [connectivity] uri=http://network-test.debian.org/nm [ifupdown] managed=false [logging] # backend=journal # audit=true [device] # wifi.backend=wpa_supplicant [device-31-mac-addr-change] match-device=driver:eagle_sdio,driver:wl wifi.scan-rand-mac-address=no # no-auto-default file "/var/lib/NetworkManager/no-auto-default.state" soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ Plus, my INTERNET Router is LG Smartphone (LGM-V300K). By Mobile Hotspot (SK Telecom), thanks! Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 07:05:55 (+), Tixy wrote: > On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 23:49 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > I would tend to think that: > > > > . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you don't > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you do > > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > > > . It shouldn't do both. > > > > My experience, admittedly from a few releases ago, is that ifupdown is > always installed but that the installer doesn't populate it's config > files with the found network interfaces, only the loopback interface. AIUI that would be normal behaviour when the DE installs its own choice of package to handle the network. But it's also what happens when you install over wifi and don't select a DE: the wifi configuration is removed as the last step in the installation process. It's a (mis)feature/bug that's been discussed for years. > I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into > /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager would > not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take over. > (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) That seems unlikely. Perhaps you're thinking of NM's ifupdown plugin that allows you to use the configuration in /e/n/i. I'm assuming the OP has not installed that in their sleep. Max's request for printing the configuration could confirm that. Cheers, David.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
Hellow David, On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 23:49 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 10:13:34 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 09:35 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 21:36:39 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > For months ago, i did upgrade Debian 12 to Debian Sid. At that > > > > time, > > > > Gnome network icon was odd. That appered as like question mark. > > > > So > > > > after i googling, i removed some file in /etc. Then OK! The > > > > Internet is > > > > started. (i did googling with smartphone). > > > > > > > > > > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ LANG=C.UTF-8 ls -l > > > > total 24 > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d > > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d > > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ > > > > > > > > > > > > As you see above, i removed /etc/network/interfaces file. > > > > Anyway > > > > now it > > > > works everything! No problem! > > > > > > > > Is this a bug? Or am i wrong? > > > > > > > > Ref: > > > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/457856/how-to-fix-debians-networkmanager-with-question-mark-even-though-network-is-wor > > > > > > AIUI there are several network configuration tools that defer to > > > configurations that are set up in /e/n/i, which would be handled > > > by ifupdown preferentially. Generally, removing /e/n/i > > > completely, > > > as you have, is fine. One side effect is that any entries in > > > /e/n/interfaces.d/ will also be disabled. > > > > > > The only machine on which I keep /e/n/i and ifupdown is my > > > travelling > > > laptop, for tethering with my phone: > > > > > > allow-hotplug usb0 > > > > > > iface usb0 inet dhcp > > > > > > BTW I don't know why you're running sid, but it's generally > > > expected > > > that sid users would be familiar with stuff like this, > > > particularly > > > as your question is already answered in the reference. > > > > In frankly, i don't know interface things and network tools. > > Whenever I > > use the default value, just as it is. So still i don't understand > > your > > reply message in technically. > > You have Gnome installed, which implies you configure the network > with > something like NetworkManager. > > You /had/ a file called /etc/network/interfaces, which implied you > were > configuring the network with ifupdown. > > If you try to configure the same /interface/ (which could be called > something like eth0) with both NetworkManager and ifupdown, then > NetworkManager should back off and let ifupdown do the configuring. > > I can't tell you whether that makes Gnome display a question mark, > but > others might know. (I don't use Gnome, NetworkManager, or ifupdown.) You see here: https://gitlab.com/soyeomul/stuff/-/commit/6796b4fcd3fb3b0e5228b20ecd3209d7d1de0af4 I reproduced the odd screenshot -- question mark. I restored the file /e/n/i as you know. > > When you renamed the file to /etc/network/interfaces.orig, then > ifupdown can no longer read it, nor take priority over > NetworkManager, > and NetworkManager should be happy to configure the interface itself. > The question mark should go away. (Do you get a happy face displayed > instead, or is NetworkManager more boring than that?) > > I would tend to think that: > > . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you don't > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you do > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > . It shouldn't do both. > > But, if you upgrade an ifupdown-system and add NetworkManager in > whatever way, then it's up to you to remove/hide any ifupdown > configuration that you want NetworkManager to perform. That's > probably what you did by renaming the file. > Thank you for your kind and detailed analysis, David! I will refer to your analysis the next time i encounter a similar difficulty. Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 23:49 -0600, David Wright wrote: > I would tend to think that: > > . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you don't > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you do > install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, > > . It shouldn't do both. > My experience, admittedly from a few releases ago, is that ifupdown is always installed but that the installer doesn't populate it's config files with the found network interfaces, only the loopback interface. I also have a more vague memory that you could put config into /etc/network/interfaces then in some circumstance NetworkManager would not try and manage that interface, and in others it would take over. (Perhaps selected by allow hotplug option in the ifupdown config?) -- Tixy
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Tue 30 Jan 2024 at 10:13:34 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 09:35 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 21:36:39 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > > > > > For months ago, i did upgrade Debian 12 to Debian Sid. At that > > > time, > > > Gnome network icon was odd. That appered as like question mark. So > > > after i googling, i removed some file in /etc. Then OK! The > > > Internet is > > > started. (i did googling with smartphone). > > > > > > > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ LANG=C.UTF-8 ls -l > > > total 24 > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d > > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d > > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ > > > > > > > > > As you see above, i removed /etc/network/interfaces file. Anyway > > > now it > > > works everything! No problem! > > > > > > Is this a bug? Or am i wrong? > > > > > > Ref: > > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/457856/how-to-fix-debians-networkmanager-with-question-mark-even-though-network-is-wor > > > > AIUI there are several network configuration tools that defer to > > configurations that are set up in /e/n/i, which would be handled > > by ifupdown preferentially. Generally, removing /e/n/i completely, > > as you have, is fine. One side effect is that any entries in > > /e/n/interfaces.d/ will also be disabled. > > > > The only machine on which I keep /e/n/i and ifupdown is my travelling > > laptop, for tethering with my phone: > > > > allow-hotplug usb0 > > > > iface usb0 inet dhcp > > > > BTW I don't know why you're running sid, but it's generally expected > > that sid users would be familiar with stuff like this, particularly > > as your question is already answered in the reference. > > In frankly, i don't know interface things and network tools. Whenever I > use the default value, just as it is. So still i don't understand your > reply message in technically. You have Gnome installed, which implies you configure the network with something like NetworkManager. You /had/ a file called /etc/network/interfaces, which implied you were configuring the network with ifupdown. If you try to configure the same /interface/ (which could be called something like eth0) with both NetworkManager and ifupdown, then NetworkManager should back off and let ifupdown do the configuring. I can't tell you whether that makes Gnome display a question mark, but others might know. (I don't use Gnome, NetworkManager, or ifupdown.) When you renamed the file to /etc/network/interfaces.orig, then ifupdown can no longer read it, nor take priority over NetworkManager, and NetworkManager should be happy to configure the interface itself. The question mark should go away. (Do you get a happy face displayed instead, or is NetworkManager more boring than that?) I would tend to think that: . The debian-installer installs ifupdown by default when you don't install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, . The debian-installer installs NetworkManager by default if you do install a Desktop Manager like Gnome, . It shouldn't do both. But, if you upgrade an ifupdown-system and add NetworkManager in whatever way, then it's up to you to remove/hide any ifupdown configuration that you want NetworkManager to perform. That's probably what you did by renaming the file. Cheers, David.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Tue, 2024-01-30 at 10:40 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 30/01/2024 08:21, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > > nm-online > > > nmcli > > > nmcli connection > > > nmcli device > > > /usr/sbin/NetworkManager --print-config > > > apt list '~i~nnetwork-manager' > > > > > > E.g. the network-manager-config-connectivity-debian package sets > > > connectivity test URI tohttp://network-test.debian.org/nm see > > > NetworkManager.conf(5). Is it available in your case? > > > > The url, i did click. Then firefox said: > > > > *NetworkManager is online* > > > > And i don't know much about other items, thanks! > > It is up to you if you wish to debug your issue and you are ready to > invest enough time into it. Just keep in mind that sid is unstable by > its definition, so your system may be broken after upgrades and may > require time to repair, to recover from backups, or to reinstall > depending on your experience and preferences. What you have faced may > be > an upstream bug or a consequence of inconsistent set of versions of > packages in the repository. > Yes. Next time the problem arises again, i will analyze it with patience, thank you Max! Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On 30/01/2024 08:21, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: nm-online nmcli nmcli connection nmcli device /usr/sbin/NetworkManager --print-config apt list '~i~nnetwork-manager' E.g. the network-manager-config-connectivity-debian package sets connectivity test URI tohttp://network-test.debian.org/nm see NetworkManager.conf(5). Is it available in your case? The url, i did click. Then firefox said: *NetworkManager is online* And i don't know much about other items, thanks! It is up to you if you wish to debug your issue and you are ready to invest enough time into it. Just keep in mind that sid is unstable by its definition, so your system may be broken after upgrades and may require time to repair, to recover from backups, or to reinstall depending on your experience and preferences. What you have faced may be an upstream bug or a consequence of inconsistent set of versions of packages in the repository.
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 22:17 +0700, Max Nikulin wrote: > On 29/01/2024 19:36, Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > > > For months ago, i did upgrade Debian 12 to Debian Sid. At that > > time, > > Gnome network icon was odd. That appered as like question mark. > [...] > > As you see above, i removed /etc/network/interfaces file. Anyway > > now it > > works everything! No problem! > > What various tools report when you have the problem? > > nm-online > nmcli > nmcli connection > nmcli device > /usr/sbin/NetworkManager --print-config > apt list '~i~nnetwork-manager' > > E.g. the network-manager-config-connectivity-debian package sets > connectivity test URI to http://network-test.debian.org/nm see > NetworkManager.conf(5). Is it available in your case? Hellow Max! The url, i did click. Then firefox said: *NetworkManager is online* And i don't know much about other items, thanks! Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Mon, 2024-01-29 at 09:35 -0600, David Wright wrote: > On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 21:36:39 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > > > For months ago, i did upgrade Debian 12 to Debian Sid. At that > > time, > > Gnome network icon was odd. That appered as like question mark. So > > after i googling, i removed some file in /etc. Then OK! The > > Internet is > > started. (i did googling with smartphone). > > > > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ LANG=C.UTF-8 ls -l > > total 24 > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d > > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ > > > > > > As you see above, i removed /etc/network/interfaces file. Anyway > > now it > > works everything! No problem! > > > > Is this a bug? Or am i wrong? > > > > Ref: > > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/457856/how-to-fix-debians-networkmanager-with-question-mark-even-though-network-is-wor > > AIUI there are several network configuration tools that defer to > configurations that are set up in /e/n/i, which would be handled > by ifupdown preferentially. Generally, removing /e/n/i completely, > as you have, is fine. One side effect is that any entries in > /e/n/interfaces.d/ will also be disabled. > > The only machine on which I keep /e/n/i and ifupdown is my travelling > laptop, for tethering with my phone: > > allow-hotplug usb0 > > iface usb0 inet dhcp > > BTW I don't know why you're running sid, but it's generally expected > that sid users would be familiar with stuff like this, particularly > as your question is already answered in the reference. > Hellow David! In frankly, i don't know interface things and network tools. Whenever I use the default value, just as it is. So still i don't understand your reply message in technically. And sid. At that time, i wanted to install a new emacs (29.1). Sid was only the way. Anyway thanks for kind advice and reply! Sincerely, Byunghee -- ^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//
Re: Q: Gnome network odd
On Mon 29 Jan 2024 at 21:36:39 (+0900), Byunghee HWANG (황병희) wrote: > > For months ago, i did upgrade Debian 12 to Debian Sid. At that time, > Gnome network icon was odd. That appered as like question mark. So > after i googling, i removed some file in /etc. Then OK! The Internet is > started. (i did googling with smartphone). > > > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ LANG=C.UTF-8 ls -l > total 24 > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-down.d > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-post-down.d > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 8 19:45 if-pre-up.d > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 7 18:51 if-up.d > drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 2023 interfaces.d > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 Oct 4 17:23 interfaces.orig > soyeomul@thinkpad-e495:/etc/network$ > > > As you see above, i removed /etc/network/interfaces file. Anyway now it > works everything! No problem! > > Is this a bug? Or am i wrong? > > Ref: > https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/457856/how-to-fix-debians-networkmanager-with-question-mark-even-though-network-is-wor AIUI there are several network configuration tools that defer to configurations that are set up in /e/n/i, which would be handled by ifupdown preferentially. Generally, removing /e/n/i completely, as you have, is fine. One side effect is that any entries in /e/n/interfaces.d/ will also be disabled. The only machine on which I keep /e/n/i and ifupdown is my travelling laptop, for tethering with my phone: allow-hotplug usb0 iface usb0 inet dhcp BTW I don't know why you're running sid, but it's generally expected that sid users would be familiar with stuff like this, particularly as your question is already answered in the reference. Cheers, David.
