Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hi Andi (Mundt), Klaus & list, On Do 24 Feb 2011 12:29:04 CET Klaus Knopper wrote: Hello Mike and list, On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:18AM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote: Hi Klaus, Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2011, 00:37:45 schrieb Klaus Knopper: > Hi all, > > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, and > actually using this file for NetworkManagers configuration handling, by > setting: > > [main] > plugins=ifupdown,keyfile > > [ifupdown] > managed=true I haven't know these before... This sounds handy. My default network manager configuration though only gets activated after user login. Does a nm configuration as you propose enable network before the user logs in? The short answer is "yes". :-) [...] @Andi: Doesn't the way Klaus describes possible usage scenarios of Network Manager provide guidelines for approaching NetworkManager setup on Skolelinux? To me it's sounds like we should keep network-manager and use the approach Klaus provided?!? Greets, Mike PS: As I experience PGP signature issues with my Horde Webclient on mailing list postings... Could someone using PGP mail to me privately, if my signature is broken on this mail? THANKS! -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0xB588399B mail: mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb pgpUNIhWnOMqu.pgp Description: Digitale PGP-Unterschrift
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
On 23. feb. 2011 21:09, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > [Andreas B. Mundt] >> After these changes, the machine seems to work. Can we make sure >> that NetworkManager isn't installed from the beginning? IIRC we >> already had discussions about that issue, but I don't remember the >> final conclusions (if any). >> To me it looks as if NetworkManager is unnecessary and only causes >> unforeseeable problems and complications. >> >> Any hints or ideas? What about using allow_hotplug eth0 instead of auto eth0 in /etc/network/interfaces ( Or did this work only in lenny ?) // faj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d664507.6040...@bzz.no
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hello Mike and list, On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:03:18AM +0100, Mike Gabriel wrote: > Hi Klaus, > > Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2011, 00:37:45 schrieb Klaus Knopper: > > Hi all, > > > > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, and > > actually using this file for NetworkManagers configuration handling, by > > setting: > > > > [main] > > plugins=ifupdown,keyfile > > > > [ifupdown] > > managed=true > > I haven't know these before... This sounds handy. > > My default network manager configuration though only gets activated after > user > login. Does a nm configuration as you propose enable network before the user > logs in? The short answer is "yes". :-) There are several (mostly underdocumented) ways to let networkmanager configure the network. The best known one is communication between a graphical frontend (such as nm-applet for GTK and knetworkmanager for KDE), both exchanging information with networkmanager via dbus+hal. That is the one you mentioned: nm-applet will open a socket to networkmanager once the user logs in, and tell networkmanager which of the user-configured profiles to use, depending on the current network state and environment. When just using this scenario, NetworkManager won't do anything before you start the graphical desktop. The lesser known way, the "non-interactive" mode, is networkmanagers internal "system-settings" service, which was a standalone program in networkmanager versions before 0.7-something, and now is integrated directly in networkmanager. You can put configuration files in /etc/NetworkManager/system-connections/ (one file for each connection, in a very networkmanager-specific syntax), or let networkmanager read /etc/network/interfaces via the "ifupdown" plugin as mentioned above. These methods work entirely without a graphical GUI; I use this mode for configuring the network on the Audio/Textconsole based ADRIANE desktop. An advantage of using networkmanager with if ifupdown is that it will still react to connectivity changes immediately (provided there are different alternative connections given in /etc/network/interfaces, such as WLAN and LAN), when plugging in a LAN cable, detecting a previously configured WLAN essid and similar. Actually, there is no better textual interface for networkmanager known to me other than the ifup plugin and /etc/network/interfaces. Probably, you can also send configuration commands to networkmanager via dbus, and there is a "cnetworkmanager" script floating around that will do this, but for me, editing /etc/network/interfaces for use with networkmanager seems to be the easier way. Another advantage of using networkmanager is that it is easily visible for the user from the nm-applet icon in the graphical desktop, whether or not the client has a working network connection. Well, probably not a big help in skolelinux, since you won't even be able to login when Tjener is unreachable. ;-) > So basically, the point about network manager is: do we need network access > before the user logs (YES: for NFS etc.) and how can this be handled by > network manager... Again, yes, networkmanager will handle this without a user logged in, with its "system-settings" part, either via /etc/network/interfaces via managed=yes, or with an ifup/ifdown-independent configuration file in /etc/NetworkManager/system-settings/. To reload networkmanager after a change to /etc/network/interfaces, in older versions you had to kill the "nm-system-settings" process (which then respawned from networkmanager), and /etc/init.d/network-manager reload in newer versions. One thing that can cause problems occurs when mixing manual calls to ifup/ifdown when networkmanager is already handling devices, or configuring wpa_supplicant manually outside of /etc/network/interfaces, when networkmanager already has started wpa_supplicant with the settings known from the non-interactive configuration. I'm not casting a vote for or against keeping networkmanager here, either method will work, just wanted to point out that non-interactive configuration is indeed possible with networkmanager. Regards Klaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110224112904.gg26...@knopper.net
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
El jue, 24-02-2011 a las 11:03 +0100, Mike Gabriel escribió: > Hi Klaus, > > Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2011, 00:37:45 schrieb Klaus Knopper: > > Hi all, > > > > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, and > > actually using this file for NetworkManagers configuration handling, by > > setting: > > > > [main] > > plugins=ifupdown,keyfile > > > > [ifupdown] > > managed=true > > I haven't know these before... This sounds handy. > > My default network manager configuration though only gets activated after > user > login. Does a nm configuration as you propose enable network before the user > logs in? > > So basically, the point about network manager is: do we need network access > before the user logs (YES: for NFS etc.) and how can this be handled by > network manager... > Replacing it with wicd (you can also use its scripts/preconnect or postconnect hooks to do anything you need prior or after getting an ip address) Regards. José L. signature.asc Description: Esta parte del mensaje está firmada digitalmente
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hi Andreas, On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:03:57AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:37:45AM +0100, Klaus Knopper wrote: > > > I have not tested but wouldn't it be sufficient to let a relevant > > > metapackage simply conflict with network-manager? From my understanding > > > the conflict should be "stronger" than recommends (if not I'd consider > > > it a bug) and so apt-get / aptitude should leave out the conflicting > > > package. > > > > Removing NetworkManager takes away the possibility of easy network > > configuration, > > I did not discussed the question whether it makes sense to remove > NetworkManager or not. I was just addressing the issue that you could > probably override the "Recommends is installed by default" issue by > properly choosen "Conflicts". My comment was not specifically meant as reply to YOUR comment, sorry if you mistook it for that. Anyways, I should have answered to the toplevel posting, since I just wanted to add my thoughs about generally removing NetworkManager. :-) > > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, > > If this solution works better I'd be in favour of it. It works "different". My proposal suggests to let NetworkManager handle the client configuration by handling /etc/network/interfaces, rather than removing NetworkManager and let ifup do the job. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. NetworkManager is maybe a little easier and more verbose from the user perspective. > > This may be a way of keeping NetworkManager intact in Skolelinux, > > instead of removing it completely. But it also means that you need > > another config file change, since "managed=false" is NetworkManagers > > default in Debian. > > ... which is probably a bad setting anyway and should be replaced by a > debconf question. Actually yes, I even thing that "managed=true" is a better default. Works nicely for certain Debian derivates. ;-) Regards -Klaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110224104153.gf26...@knopper.net
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hi Klaus, Am Donnerstag, 24. Februar 2011, 00:37:45 schrieb Klaus Knopper: > Hi all, > > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, and > actually using this file for NetworkManagers configuration handling, by > setting: > > [main] > plugins=ifupdown,keyfile > > [ifupdown] > managed=true I haven't know these before... This sounds handy. My default network manager configuration though only gets activated after user login. Does a nm configuration as you propose enable network before the user logs in? So basically, the point about network manager is: do we need network access before the user logs (YES: for NFS etc.) and how can this be handled by network manager... Greets, Mike -- DAS-NETZWERKTEAM mike gabriel, dorfstr. 27, 24245 barmissen fon: +49 (4302) 281418, fax: +49 (4302) 281419 GnuPG Key ID 0x1943CA5B mail: m.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de, http://das-netzwerkteam.de freeBusy: https://mail.das-netzwerkteam.de/freebusy/m.gabriel%40das-netzwerkteam.de.xfb signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:37:45AM +0100, Klaus Knopper wrote: > > I have not tested but wouldn't it be sufficient to let a relevant > > metapackage simply conflict with network-manager? From my understanding > > the conflict should be "stronger" than recommends (if not I'd consider > > it a bug) and so apt-get / aptitude should leave out the conflicting > > package. > > Removing NetworkManager takes away the possibility of easy network > configuration, I did not discussed the question whether it makes sense to remove NetworkManager or not. I was just addressing the issue that you could probably override the "Recommends is installed by default" issue by properly choosen "Conflicts". > However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between > NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager > aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, If this solution works better I'd be in favour of it. > This may be a way of keeping NetworkManager intact in Skolelinux, > instead of removing it completely. But it also means that you need > another config file change, since "managed=false" is NetworkManagers > default in Debian. ... which is probably a bad setting anyway and should be replaced by a debconf question. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110224070357.gb18...@an3as.eu
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hi all, On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:40:38PM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > The issue is that apt in Squeeze install recommends by default, > > and NetworkManager is recommended by packages we do want to install. > > We will need to rewrite the entire tasksel framework we use to install > > packages to do something about that. > > I have not tested but wouldn't it be sufficient to let a relevant > metapackage simply conflict with network-manager? From my understanding > the conflict should be "stronger" than recommends (if not I'd consider > it a bug) and so apt-get / aptitude should leave out the conflicting > package. > > > I am open for suggestions. I believe our best option is to disable > > NetworkManager, both in d-i and after installation, and leave it at > > that. > > This would not solve the "other packages we do not want and come with > network-manager" issue. > > Kind regards > > Andreas. Removing NetworkManager takes away the possibility of easy network configuration, VPN access and automatic roaming from client users. This may of course be a deliberate decision if you want to avoid users messing with the client network configuration at all. However, I found that another way of avoiding conflicts between NetworkManager and ifup/ifdown is possible by just making NetworkManager aware of everything preconfigured in /etc/network/interfaces, and actually using this file for NetworkManagers configuration handling, by setting: [main] plugins=ifupdown,keyfile [ifupdown] managed=true in /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf. This way, NetworkManager will just do whatever is written in /etc/network/interface, i.e. configure the clients like it's set forth there, independent of the graphical (nm-applet) client running on the users desktop. To avoid duplicate activation, you may want to disable "ifup -a" (the "network" init script) elsewhere. This may be a way of keeping NetworkManager intact in Skolelinux, instead of removing it completely. But it also means that you need another config file change, since "managed=false" is NetworkManagers default in Debian. Regards -Klaus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110223233745.gc26...@knopper.net
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:09:33PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > The issue is that apt in Squeeze install recommends by default, > and NetworkManager is recommended by packages we do want to install. > We will need to rewrite the entire tasksel framework we use to install > packages to do something about that. I have not tested but wouldn't it be sufficient to let a relevant metapackage simply conflict with network-manager? From my understanding the conflict should be "stronger" than recommends (if not I'd consider it a bug) and so apt-get / aptitude should leave out the conflicting package. > I am open for suggestions. I believe our best option is to disable > NetworkManager, both in d-i and after installation, and leave it at > that. This would not solve the "other packages we do not want and come with network-manager" issue. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110223214038.gh24...@an3as.eu
Re: Can we get rid of network-manager?
[Andreas B. Mundt] > After these changes, the machine seems to work. Can we make sure > that NetworkManager isn't installed from the beginning? IIRC we > already had discussions about that issue, but I don't remember the > final conclusions (if any). > To me it looks as if NetworkManager is unnecessary and only causes > unforeseeable problems and complications. > > Any hints or ideas? While I agree that we want to avoid NetworkManager on everything but standalone and roaming profiles, I tried and it was easier said than done. The issue is that apt in Squeeze install recommends by default, and NetworkManager is recommended by packages we do want to install. We will need to rewrite the entire tasksel framework we use to install packages to do something about that. I am open for suggestions. I believe our best option is to disable NetworkManager, both in d-i and after installation, and leave it at that. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110223200933.ga2...@login1.uio.no
Can we get rid of network-manager?
Hi, when installing the workstation profile (I tested this in combination with the ltsp-server-profile), the network-manager package seems to spoil the installed system. First, it removes the dhcp interface by adding '#NetworkManager#' in front of the relevant line in /etc/network/interfaces: auto eth0 #NetworkManager#iface eth0 inet dhcp Cf. #530024, #612247 and http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkManager for more information. I tried to add the interface again. However, from the log messages I concluded that NetworkManager was still very active for reasons I'm not sure they make sense, because the machine failed to accept the name offered by dhcp and other faiures. I removed networkmanager now (see aptitude log below) and a whole bunch of other packages we don't want on a workstation could be removed too, because they had no dependencies left (libnss-mdns was installed). After these changes, the machine seems to work. Can we make sure that NetworkManager isn't installed from the beginning? IIRC we already had discussions about that issue, but I don't remember the final conclusions (if any). To me it looks as if NetworkManager is unnecessary and only causes unforeseeable problems and complications. Any hints or ideas? Best regards, Andi >From the sucessive aptitude runs: Aptitude 0.6.3: log report Wed, Feb 23 2011 19:57:56 +0100 [...] Will install 1 packages, and remove 3 packages. 5,431 kB of disk space will be freed === [REMOVE, DEPENDENCIES] knm-runtime [REMOVE, DEPENDENCIES] plasma-widget-networkmanagement [INSTALL] libnss-mdns [REMOVE] network-manager === Log complete. Aptitude 0.6.3: log report Wed, Feb 23 2011 19:59:46 +0100 [...] Will install 0 packages, and remove 18 packages. 21.4 MB of disk space will be freed === [REMOVE, NOT USED] dnsmasq-base [REMOVE, NOT USED] libnm-glib-vpn1 [REMOVE, NOT USED] libpcsclite1 [REMOVE, NOT USED] libpkcs11-helper1 [REMOVE, NOT USED] modemmanager [REMOVE, NOT USED] network-manager-openvpn [REMOVE, NOT USED] network-manager-pptp [REMOVE, NOT USED] network-manager-vpnc [REMOVE, NOT USED] openssl-blacklist [REMOVE, NOT USED] openvpn [REMOVE, NOT USED] openvpn-blacklist [REMOVE, NOT USED] ppp [REMOVE, NOT USED] pptp-linux [REMOVE, NOT USED] tcl [REMOVE, NOT USED] usb-modeswitch [REMOVE, NOT USED] usb-modeswitch-data [REMOVE, NOT USED] vpnc [REMOVE, NOT USED] wpasupplicant === -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110223194829.GA12780@flashgordon
