On Mon, 2005-08-01 at 11:50 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
I think a big component of the design thought behind NetworkManager is
to make the common case work really, really well, even if that comes
at the expense of some of the less-common cases.
For example, making 802.11 work really well,
On Sun, 2005-07-31 at 15:15 +0200, Olivier Blin wrote:
Ok, but you could have enhanced the current system to have this kind
of status reporting. Currently, I guess you have lost the ability to
manage ppp connections, dsl connections and isdn connections in
NetworkManager.
I think a big
On Sat, 2005-07-30 at 14:38 -0400, Will Dyson wrote:
On 7/28/05, Steev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will Dyson wrote:
I can work on moving the resolv.conf management into the backends, if
people think that would be useful. Do any other distributions (or any
of the BSDs) have their own
Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, making 802.11 work really well, and not including ppp and
idsn. I know ppp/isdn are probably very important to some people, but
in good design you have to make some trade-offs.
Well, you want NetworkManager to be *the* universal network
Dan Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes. That is, more or less, the point. What we do _not_ want is some random
front-end to ifup/ifdown like Red Hat's system-config-network currently is.
You
simply do not get the kind of error reporting, user interaction, and feedback
that is
On 7/29/05, Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 12:12 -0400, Will Dyson wrote:
The former. My laptop is the only machine that runs NM. All my
machines have resolvconf.
What we want to do is get to the point where NM is installed everywhere,
from servers to
On 7/28/05, Steev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will Dyson wrote:
I can work on moving the resolv.conf management into the backends, if
people think that would be useful. Do any other distributions (or any
of the BSDs) have their own systems for managing resolver information?
Gentoo
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 18:28 -0400, Will Dyson wrote:
I really use resolvconf because it seems more elegant than having
various different scripts and programs rewriting my resolv.conf file.
My point is, NetworkManager should be the only program writing out your
resolv.conf. For example,
On 7/29/05, Colin Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't really see the value in extra indirection through resolvconf
unless it actually solves some real-world problem that users care about.
If you can come up with one, great; we can discuss implementation
details in solving that problem
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 12:12 -0400, Will Dyson wrote:
So the added value here is the removal of a potential failure case
(and one that I'm sure others will hit) when NetworkManager is stopped
or removed. NetworkManager is supposed to be friendly, and I feel that
includes doing everything it
On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 22:10 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
Will Dyson wrote:
Now, one could say that the real solution here is for Debian/Ubuntu
packages of NetworkManager to Conflict: with resolvconf. But playing
nice with resolvconf is so easy, I just don't understand the objection
to it.
On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 11:54 -0400, Will Dyson wrote:
I've been playing with NetworkManager on my laptop (running Ubuntu).
I'm rather pleased with it in general, but I use the resolvconf [1]
package for managing /etc/resolv.conf.
Can you explain why you use resolvconf and NetworkManager? What
On 7/28/05, Steev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't this go into the debian/ubuntu backend, and not into the
NetworkManager source itself?
Possibly. Probably, even. But right now, the existing management of
resolv.conf is a bit tied to the named-manager, and I didn't want to
refactor too much
Will Dyson wrote:
I can work on moving the resolv.conf management into the backends, if
people think that would be useful. Do any other distributions (or any
of the BSDs) have their own systems for managing resolver information?
Gentoo currently just uses /etc/resolv.conf, however there is a
14 matches
Mail list logo
