Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Hi Michael, On Sun, Sep 26, 2021 at 01:01:28AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 23.09.21 um 20:17 schrieb Holger Wansing: > > > I have just installed an LXDE system to test this, and now adding > > network-manager-gnome, installs 24 new packages, taking 39 MB of additional > > disk space, according to the apt-get output > I might consider splitting off network-manager's /usr/share/locale into an > (optional, Recommends/Suggests) network-manager-l10n package. The locales > take up about 8,5 MB of disk space. I agree that 8.5MB are not much these days but if it helps to accept network-manager as a unique default this would probably a sensible step. > While I don't necessarily think that 8,5 MB are actually that much of an > issue for desktop installations, trimming down the on disk footprint might > make network-manager more suitable for more constrained environments. > > There is also a (somewhat stale) MR [1] for network-manager asking for the > individual plugins to be split into separate packages to make it possible to > trim down the dependency chain. > > If there is real demand for it, we could revisit that. In the same way I wrote above: If increases the acceptance for NM - yes, this sounds good. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Am 23.09.21 um 20:17 schrieb Holger Wansing: I have just installed an LXDE system to test this, and now adding network-manager-gnome, installs 24 new packages, taking 39 MB of additional disk space, according to the apt-get output I might consider splitting off network-manager's /usr/share/locale into an (optional, Recommends/Suggests) network-manager-l10n package. The locales take up about 8,5 MB of disk space. While I don't necessarily think that 8,5 MB are actually that much of an issue for desktop installations, trimming down the on disk footprint might make network-manager more suitable for more constrained environments. There is also a (somewhat stale) MR [1] for network-manager asking for the individual plugins to be split into separate packages to make it possible to trim down the dependency chain. If there is real demand for it, we could revisit that. Michael [1] https://salsa.debian.org/utopia-team/network-manager/-/merge_requests/4 OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
On Thursday, September 23rd, 2021 at 1:05 PM, Michael Biebl wrote: > Am 23.09.21 um 21:35 schrieb Jaycee Santos: > > Is there a reason why to choose gnome-network-manager over something like > > nm-tray for LXDE? > > I think nm-tray (being based on Qt5) is a reasonable choice for LXQT (which > is also Qt5 based). LXDE on the other hand uses GTK, so I think > network-manager-gnome is a better fit there. (both disk footprint and memory > usage wise) Ah. My apologies. I thought nm-applet was provided by nm-tray. I was wrong. I did not know that nm-applet was part of network-manager-gnome! So I agree with network-manager-gnome being a better fit for LXDE. Apparently, I was already using it. Jaycee
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Am 23.09.21 um 21:35 schrieb Jaycee Santos: On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Ervin Dine wrote: I have not had any problems with conman in my LXDE Debian 11 install but if I may give my suggestion, gnome-network-manager works fine with LXDE and it has more features. Why not bundle that instead of conman? Conman does not even have an icon in the status bar where you can toggle wifi on and off or choose another connection. Is there a reason why to choose gnome-network-manager over something like nm-tray for LXDE? I think nm-tray (being based on Qt5) is a reasonable choice for LXQT (which is also Qt5 based). LXDE on the other hand uses GTK, so I think network-manager-gnome is a better fit there. (both disk footprint and memory usage wise) OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Ervin Dine wrote: > I have not had any problems with conman in my LXDE Debian 11 install > but if I may give my suggestion, gnome-network-manager works fine with > LXDE and it has more features. Why not bundle that instead of conman? > Conman does not even have an icon in the status bar where you can > toggle wifi on and off or choose another connection. Is there a reason why to choose gnome-network-manager over something like nm-tray for LXDE? Jaycee
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Hi, On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 08:17:37PM +0200, Holger Wansing wrote: > > LXDE is one of the light-weighted desktops, and LXDE is not Gnome. Sure. That was the reason why I had choosen this as desktop for quite some old hardware. > So, if you add gnome-network-manager to the LXDE task, how much of Gnome will > be pulled in via dependencies? > This might be an argument pro connman. >From my point of view it is bearable. > I have just installed an LXDE system to test this, and now adding > network-manager-gnome, installs 24 new packages, taking 39 MB of additional > disk space, according to the apt-get output (the whole LXDE system having > 3,4 GB of disk space used). I'm more about memory usage than disk space usage. IMHO 39MB for something that works in contrast to saving space that is hard to use or even might break a system under some circumstances is a sensible tradeof. > I guess this would be worth it. I agree here (may be removing connman saves some extra space again (probably not much). > What do others think? LXDE people? Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Hi, Andreas Tille wrote (Thu, 23 Sep 2021 07:20:57 +0200): > On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Ervin Dine wrote: > > I have not had any problems with conman in my LXDE Debian 11 install > > but if I may give my suggestion, gnome-network-manager works fine with > > LXDE and it has more features. Why not bundle that instead of conman? > > Conman does not even have an icon in the status bar where you can > > toggle wifi on and off or choose another connection. LXDE is one of the light-weighted desktops, and LXDE is not Gnome. So, if you add gnome-network-manager to the LXDE task, how much of Gnome will be pulled in via dependencies? This might be an argument pro connman. I have just installed an LXDE system to test this, and now adding network-manager-gnome, installs 24 new packages, taking 39 MB of additional disk space, according to the apt-get output (the whole LXDE system having 3,4 GB of disk space used). I guess this would be worth it. What do others think? LXDE people? > > The missing icon in the status bar triggered bug #988696. I personally > consider this very unfriendly to new users. Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Fingerprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Re: connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:21:10PM +0200, Ervin Dine wrote: > I have not had any problems with conman in my LXDE Debian 11 install > but if I may give my suggestion, gnome-network-manager works fine with > LXDE and it has more features. Why not bundle that instead of conman? > Conman does not even have an icon in the status bar where you can > toggle wifi on and off or choose another connection. The missing icon in the status bar triggered bug #988696. I personally consider this very unfriendly to new users. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de
connman does not respect /etc/network/interfaces when upgrading from buster to bullseye and more general considerations
Hi, I'd like to draw the attention of debian-devel to the problem below (reported ad bug #994875) which breaks certain systems on upgrades. As I described in bug #988696 which boils down to my last message to this bug report where I wrote "No idea how to configure network easily after fresh lxde install." This means: Even an experienced user like me does not obviously find easy access to a very important feature of a fresh installation to login to a network. My reason to bring this up on debian devel is that I have the feeling that while we provide lots of different desktops in dedicated images the general QA how useful these might be is left to the maintainers of this desktop who probably have a focussed view and do not realise what hurdles newcomers might need to take. My other point is that we here have another case where the freedom of choice of tools to use leads to non-default behaviour. I simply assumed that network-manager would be some kind of default and if it would be used in lxde task those two problems would not have happened. So my suggestion is to propose some set of default tools for every desktop environment we are providing and network configuration should be part of it. (I admit I also had trouble with wicd which until some point of time was installed as default with xfce4 installer media - no idea whether this is the case any more - my arguing would be the same here.) Kind regards Andreas. PS: I also CCed debian-desktop list. If you feel the discussion should happen there please CC me since I'm not subscribed to that list. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 01:09:17PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Package: connman > Version: 1.36-2.2 > Severity: important > > Hi, > > recently I was upgrading a workstation running buster to bullseye from > remote. This box had a fixed IP set in /etc/network/interfaces. After > a rebooting I've "lost" the machine and I had to check the machine > physicaly. It was asking for a totally different IP address via DHCP. > I found out that connman was installed on this machine due to lxde > metapackage Recommends. After simply purging connman which is not used > anyway all went fine on this machine. > > I would have loved to track this down in more detail but this > workstation is mission critical and there is no option to bother users > with fiddling around on the system that is now running as expected > again. I'm fine with digging in the logs if you tell me what kind of > information is needed. > > Kind regards > Andreas. > > > -- System Information: > Debian Release: 11.0 > APT prefers testing > APT policy: (501, 'testing'), (50, 'buildd-unstable'), (50, 'unstable'), > (5, 'experimental'), (1, 'buildd-experimental') > Architecture: amd64 (x86_64) > > Kernel: Linux 5.10.0-8-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU threads) > Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), > LANGUAGE=de_DE:de > Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash > Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system) > LSM: AppArmor: enabled > > Versions of packages connman depends on: > ii dbus 1.12.20-2 > ii init-system-helpers 1.60 > ii iptables 1.8.7-1 > ii libc62.31-13 > ii libdbus-1-3 1.12.20-2 > ii libglib2.0-0 2.68.4-1 > ii libgnutls30 3.7.1-5 > ii libreadline8 8.1-1 > ii libxtables12 1.8.7-1 > ii lsb-base 11.1.0 > > Versions of packages connman recommends: > pn bluez > pn ofono > ii wpasupplicant 2:2.9.0-21 > > Versions of packages connman suggests: > pn connman-vpn > > -- http://fam-tille.de
