On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 09:05 -0500, Joseph E. Sacco, Ph.D. wrote:
NetworkManager requires a patched version of dhcp
Drifting towards off-topic, but can you (or someone) explain (or point
us to a discussion elsewhere) what's needed here? Are you talking about
the DHCP client in ISC's releases, or
Andrew,
I have been working [with David Cantell's help] to get NetworkManager to
work under GARNOME. When I started this exercise, I was running
YDL-4.1, an FC4 clone. I found that the installed version of dhcp was
high enough, but lacked a patch that is required for NetworkManager to
work.
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 13:13 +0100, Carlos Garnacho wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Dan Williams
If it's a priority, it can certainly be done.
I don't think this is wildly important - it'll just increase maintainership
requirements for you
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:35:58PM +0530, Ritesh Khadgaray wrote:
If the plan were to ditch network-admin, I'd recommend at least using
liboobs as the safe fallback, it already manages static configuration
for ethernet and wireless interfaces for many Unices quite reliably, and
other
On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 10:30 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Dan Williams
If it's a priority, it can certainly be done.
I don't think this is wildly important - it'll just increase maintainership
requirements for you unnecessarily.
What we do need, however, is some kind of
quote who=Carlos Garnacho
If we don't ditch network-admin, what about a enable roaming mode
checkbox that deconfigures the wifi interface and lets NM do its job?
Hrm, great thought!
- Jeff
--
linux.conf.au 2007: Sydney, Australia http://lca2007.linux.org.au/
2.4.1ac17 is full
On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 11:13 -0500, Robert Love wrote:
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 21:00 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
So, several people suggested that having separate packages would be
useful. I guess it's also useful for testing reasons and to send a clear
message that NetworkManager is not
quote who=Dan Williams
If it's a priority, it can certainly be done.
I don't think this is wildly important - it'll just increase maintainership
requirements for you unnecessarily.
What we do need, however, is some kind of co-operation between NM and the
GNOME System Tools or other network
On Wed, 2006-11-22 at 21:00 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
So, several people suggested that having separate packages would be
useful. I guess it's also useful for testing reasons and to send a clear
message that NetworkManager is not GNOME-specific. And also it'll be
easier to make new releases
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 05:57 +0100, Alp Toker wrote:
Perhaps the transition for inclusion in Gnome is a good time to start
looking at the problems real programs are facing in integrating
NetworkManager support?
I completely agree here.
The main issues are:
1) Inconsistent casing of API
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 05:57 +0100, Alp Toker wrote:
Alp,
Perhaps the transition for inclusion in Gnome is a good time to start
looking at the problems real programs are facing in integrating
NetworkManager support?
I suggest we move this discussion to the NetworkManager mailing list,
where
Robert Love wrote:
There is both a daemon and a client? Explain.
The daemon is desktop-agnostic. It requires glib, HAL, and DBUS. It
runs as root, at the system-level, and enforces no policy, stores no
settings, and maintains no state across sessions.
The client, conversely, is
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 17:39 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 12:30 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:24 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
Are you then proposing three separate tarball releases?
Would you then split NM into three separate CVS modules?
On 10/3/06, Robert Love [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's try this again.
I'd like to start the discussion on getting NetworkManager--more
explicitly, its GNOME-based applet, nm-applet--into GNOME 2.18.
Could you add this to the proposed desktop modules section of
On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 10:04 -0600, Elijah Newren wrote:
Could you add this to the proposed desktop modules section of
http://live.gnome.org/TwoPointSeventeen/Desktop?
Great suggestion. Done.
Robert
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
Let's try this again.
I'd like to start the discussion on getting NetworkManager--more
explicitly, its GNOME-based applet, nm-applet--into GNOME 2.18.
Tell me about NetworkManager without using big words.
NetworkManager is the future of Linux networking. Red Hat, SUSE, and
others have
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:40 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
Let's try this again.
I'd like to start the discussion on getting NetworkManager--more
explicitly, its GNOME-based applet, nm-applet--into GNOME 2.18.
Tell me about NetworkManager without using big words.
NetworkManager is the
quote who=Robert Love
Right now both the applet and daemon live in GNOME CVS and are released
together.
(I don't think it's important for them to be split, unless you forsee the
combination having an impact on adherence to the GNOME release schedule.)
I think the crucial thing we need to do
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:44 -0400, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Robert Love
Right now both the applet and daemon live in GNOME CVS and are released
together.
(I don't think it's important for them to be split, unless you forsee the
combination having an impact on adherence to the GNOME
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 12:30 -0400, Robert Love wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:24 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
Are you then proposing three separate tarball releases?
Would you then split NM into three separate CVS modules?
Where would each of those modules live? (I can't imagine
KDE
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 18:23 -0400, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 14:44 -0400, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Robert Love
Right now both the applet and daemon live in GNOME CVS and are released
together.
(I don't think it's important for them to be split, unless you
21 matches
Mail list logo
