Comment # 8 on bug 895447 from
(In reply to Dominique Leuenberger from comment #7)
> (In reply to Marius Tomaschewski from comment #6)
> > (In reply to Dominique Leuenberger from comment #4)
> > > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/NetworkManager/NetworkManager/commit/data/
> > > NetworkManager.service.in?id=1d89bc0004ec27fbc0c89f17861118c78d7eeab5 and
> > > the referenced bug (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=876218#c49)
> > > have a very nice story why NM is not tearing down the network on 'systemctl
> > > stop NetworkManager'
> > > 
> > > => on a shutdown, if you have a NFS mounted root, the root 'disappears' on
> > > you and the shutdown hangs...
> > 
> > Ah... yes. Then I'd say: kill -9 dhclient in this case would do the right
> > thing (same as sysconfig were doing before ;-)
> 
> done by what? if we don't want it and do not care for remote FS root, then
> we can disable this and simply kill the network on the go;

By NM when there is a remote FS.

> Question would be: what is more common:
> - User switching NM off completely to switch to wicked
>   (if done through Yast, yast should  be able to take care of terminating
> dhclient as well)
>   if done by means of services, well, the user better know what he does :)

Skilled user -- perhaps: when he notices this left over. Otherwise there
is dhclient running and breaking the currently used network service.

> of
> 
> updating NetworkManager package and triggering a restart (on Factory this
> happens often... )
> 
> => I'm in favor of keeping NM the way it is; and for the case of a user
> switching between NM and wicked, have yast to the right things (which would
> mean for this bug: 'wontfix'...it actually does not describe an explicit
> issue after all

It is IMO definitely not a WONTFIX as it breaks networking. The new service
isn't able to work properly when the old leaves running dhcp clients.

The problem is also: when you start dhclient again, the dhclient script
_may_ deconfigure the interface / address family it currently handles;
this depends on the script implementation of course.


You are receiving this mail because: