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
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 (
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 b
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 NetworkMa
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
> > > t
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
>
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)
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 nee
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 som
[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 unneces
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:
a
11 matches
Mail list logo