On Tue, 2015-12-08 at 10:44 -0600, Robby Workman wrote: > On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:36:20 +0100 > Thomas Haller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Does that make sense? > > > Indeed it does. That's not as intuitive as I'd like, but if that's > the designed behavior, then what I'm experiencing is not a bug.
I'd say the behavior grew historically, and will be improved with 1.2. > For the sake of clarity, both for me and perhaps others, the 1.0.x > behavior > is as follows: > > default-unmanaged is set by e.g. udev rules, and essentially tells NM > to > leave the interface alone at NM startup, i.e. don't try to configure > it > or manipulate any existing configuration. However, if the user > explicitly > requests NM to manipulate the interface, then this is permissible. > > user-unmanaged is set in NetworkManager.conf and essentially tells NM > to > disallow *any* configuration/manipulation of the interface. > > Is that correct? I'd agree with your summary. Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ networkmanager-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
