http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010#c3 --- Comment #3 from Frederic Crozat --- I have one (personal) usecase which is forcing me to use cloud-init and I'd still want to MicroOS as OS for this. Moreover, ALP is switching to NM and dropping wicked. So, we will need to handle this in the near future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010#c6 Frederic Crozat changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(fcrozat@suse.com) | --- Comment #6 from Frederic Crozat --- (In reply to Robert Schweikert from comment #4)

Hold on that doesn't make any sense to me what so ever. NM does not handle the underlying connections, i.e. NM does not make DHCP requests etc. That happens via wicked or via dhcpclient.

If we are dropping wicked are we going back to dhcpclient?

no, systemd has its own dhcp client (in fact, import of systemd-networkd code). Or it can use dhcp-client or other dhcp clients.

What happens to our sysconfig layout and the values we set in sysconfig?

It depends which settings you are talking about. BTW, latest version of cloud-init upstream landed NM in May (to handle NM config file natively, as Fedora is moving away from ifcfg files).

As a side note wicked is required by a lot of packages in the Public Cloud area, we need a running network.

and I don't see why you don't get one with NM. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010#c8 --- Comment #8 from Frederic Crozat --- (In reply to Robert Schweikert from comment #7)

Again cloud-nit is not a topic for SLE Micro which is why I have not paid much attention to the topic.

Consider this as a preview of the work to be done for ALP.

I'd much rather use cloud-init than ignition/combustion/afterburn but that brings Python and a number of other dependencies. And everyone raises a red flag every time something that uses Python is needed as i "SLE-Micro is getting too big".

Well, where is the spec as to what sysconfig will look like, or are we just adopting what RH does? There is a lot of code in cloud-init that deals with our settings for bridge setup, route configuration files etc. And I still carry a large patch in the package that I have not pushed upstream.

If that's all changing for whatever is next that's fine, but then someone better produce a spec to code to.

I think you should join the ALP workgroup in Network configuration stack, to discuss this further : https://confluence.suse.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=963936740 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1201010#c10 --- Comment #10 from Frederic Crozat --- (In reply to Robert Schweikert from comment #9)

Sure all in my ample spare time.

What I need from the ALP network group is a spec, I do not see the need to participate to influence the direction as to where networking is going. Other people that know much more about networking than I do need to make the decisions what's best. Then give me a spec and I'll figure out how to get it into cloud-init. Until then the version in Cloud:Tools will remain the same as is in SLES. For anything to fiddle with Cloud:Tools:Next is the project to work with.

Could you at least state that in the confluence page for this workgroup, so they are aware of it ? Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.