On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:53:42AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:51:59AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The thread was discussing the removal of network-admin - doesn't that
> > > modify /etc/netw
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:51:59AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The thread was discussing the removal of network-admin - doesn't that
> > modify /etc/network/interfaces?
>
> Yes it does that atm. But if network-admin is still
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 10:44:49AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:26:50AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > To be fair to NM, this is a Debian/Ubuntu integration issue. System-wide
> > > configuration
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 11:31:07AM +0200, Alexander Sack wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:26:50AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > To be fair to NM, this is a Debian/Ubuntu integration issue. System-wide
> > configuration is present but requires a system-specific backend.
> >
>
> NetworkMana
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:26:50AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:27:10PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
>
> > Btw, I haven't seen that system wide configuration on OpenSUSE and
> > Fedora. I would like to see it in action. So far I am very nervous
> > about ditching n
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 10:27:10PM +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> Btw, I haven't seen that system wide configuration on OpenSUSE and
> Fedora. I would like to see it in action. So far I am very nervous
> about ditching network-admin, because no matter how it was stuck in
> development, or it la
On Sun, 2008-09-07 at 22:27 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote:
> So far I am very nervous
> about ditching network-admin, because no matter how it was stuck in
> development, or it lacked features, it worked,
It worked? When? I don't remember this. Was this back during Breezy
or earlier?
Probabl
2008/9/7 Wouter Stomp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Jordan Mantha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Btw, a slight offtopic from this message, but does it mean that there
>>> will be no network-admi
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Jordan Mantha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Btw, a slight offtopic from this message, but does it mean that there
>> will be no network-admin from g-s-t in Ibex?
>>
>> Would be very sad if
To add to this, we have some serious regressions with problems of not
being able to consistently apply static IPs as well as custom MTU
values:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/258743
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/256054
http://bugzi
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 9:24 AM, Peteris Krisjanis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Btw, a slight offtopic from this message, but does it mean that there
> will be no network-admin from g-s-t in Ibex?
>
> Would be very sad if that happened.
It won't be installed by default. However, it is still in the
should
> prefix the summary with NM 0.7. Is that correct?
>
> I have created 6 bugs for NM 0.7 but they are all untouched.
>
> NM 0.7 Regression from 0.6.6 using VPNC plugin
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+bug/262191
> NM 0.7 Hard to fix if you
Hello
I recall reading something about if you file bugs on NM 0.7 you should
prefix the summary with NM 0.7. Is that correct?
I have created 6 bugs for NM 0.7 but they are all untouched.
NM 0.7 Regression from 0.6.6 using VPNC plugin
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager
13 matches
Mail list logo
