> it would be great if ltsp could more directly express what it really
> wants to do by creating a /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/ltsp.conf snippet
Some thoughts on this:
1) LTSP chroots don't have network-manager installed by default, they
are minimal images generated by debootstrap.
It's possible to build LTSP "fat" chroots that do have nm installed
though (along with a whole desktop environment).
2) Even if nm was installed, ifupdown would still ifdown the interfaces
on shutdown (with the old ifupdown behaviour), right? So creating
/etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/ltsp.conf wouldn't help there, would it?
3) Conceptually, ifupdown's "manual" isn't exactly the same as
network-manager's "unmanaged". For example, nm could allow the users to
see the connection speed or status or add VPNs over it, without allowing
them to activate/deactivate the interface.
4) It's also possible to netboot clients using AoE (ATA over Ethernet),
where the root file system is accessible with ethernet packets even if
the interface doesn't have an IP, the only prerequisite is for it to
always be up. So if nm could respect that, then it could manage the
interface normally, it could use dhclient to assign an IP to it etc.
I just wanted to mention these thoughts, I'll leave it up to the LTSP
Debian maintainer to decide if he wants to tag the connection as
unmanaged or not.
Cheers!
