Am 03.09.22 um 06:32 schrieb Casey Deccio: >> On Sep 2, 2022, at 8:14 PM, Kevin Price <k...@osnanet.de> wrote
>> We got him. :) Casey, you file the bug report, Okay? > Done! https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1018999 > Thanks for all the help! You are very welcome. Thanks a lot for this conversation, which felt very pleasant to me, and kind, productive, and helpful, even though especially my initial reply was quite tight-lipped. Thanks to our well-working cooperation. We've successfully and quite quickly pinpointed the cause of a real-world problem that likely affects many others. ^5 IMHO, this is a good example of how I wish the Debian/FLOSS community to always be. Or any good community, for that matter. If I may: Very well done, Casey. *shoulder tap* What caught my initial attention was the possibility of the kernel broadly changing its behavior within a stable release, which in itself would pose a huge problem, which to prevent is the very purpose of stable. Glad that turned out to be false. Your appreciativeness encouraged me to follow up on this, which rewarded me with quite some fun in helping to solve this little puzzle with you, and with the bonus of a few decoys in our way. ;D Out of curiosity I've subscribed to your bug #1018999. Very well written. Its outcome we'll see. As to if, when, and how it might get fixed, I'm not all that optimistic, so you might want to stick with any workarounds for a while. (maybe a tailored deb package that _Conflicts_: connman and _Recommends_: network-manager, or else maybe a kernel boot command line parameter "ipv6.disable=1", which completely overrides sysctl, or whatever may suit your needs) Although connman is actively being maintained upstream and in Debian right now, it's far from granted this bug will be acknowledged as such at all, either in Debian or upstream. Otherwise it might be dismissed as connman's "expected behavior". Although I'm not in favor of that in this case, I do understand the argument that a program designed for the sole purpose of managing network interfaces, actually manages network interfaces. Maybe not in the way we'd like. Maybe it could manage them to more satisfaction by asking permission before overriding the user's preference to disable_ipv6, which it doesn't. Thus #1018999. In case your bug gets acknowledged, (which is a huge if) I'd expect any resolution to appear in stable no sooner than in Bookworm, whenever that may be released. (...very purpose of stable...) Also, in case bug #1018999 is not going to be fully resolved to your needs, we might consider filing a wishlist "bug report" against lxde to at least change their recommendation into something less troublesome, such as network-manager maybe. Which does not interfere with the user's preferences in the same way. Oh BTW, I ought to file another bug report against connman (if not already pending) for not being able to be installed via ssh in a DHCP environment. (because during postinst it reconfigures the network interfaces, failing to use the proper FQDN in DHCP requests, thus getting a new IP address assigned and cutting off the ssh session) Not quite certain, but I guess this violates some existing Debian policy, or else a new Debian policy to come into place rather soon. (bug report against debian-policy) Thank you Casey for being part of the Debian community. Your participation makes Debian a better place to be, so please keep it up! -- Kevin