Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Michael Biebl <[email protected]> (17/12/2008): >> It's the same underlying issue. > > Alright. > >> What has changed though between 0.6 and 0.7 is the way, how NM >> determines when to mark a device managed or unmanaged (see the 0.6 >> README.Debian and the new README.Debian). >> >> That's why you see this "regression" with 0.7. (It actually isn't a >> regression, as you can now controll more easily when to mark a device >> managed/unmanaged) > > Well, for people who want it to “just work” (and AFAICT that's the aim > of network-manager people), it was previously working, and is no longer > without tweaking a configuration file, hence my calling it a regression > (from an very-end-user point of view).
I'm currently considering to switch the default mode to managed=true This also has potential pit falls (like ifupdown and NM fighting over who should manage a device that is listed in /e/n/i). I haven't decided yet. The long term goal, is to use manage=true as default though. 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
