[openFATE 306984] Create a Single way of Managing NIC Devices
Feature added by: Scott Couston (zcnnnnzc) Feature #306984, revision 1 Title: Create a Single way of Managing NIC Devices openSUSE-11.2: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Scott Couston (zcnnnnzc) Description: In Opensuse 11.1 the decision was made to remove Yast control of Network Manager. This created 2 semi-dependant ways of managing Network Interface Cards, that in retrospect offered poor or impossible singular control. This decision may have had technical merit however it created a huge deal of complication and bugs as a result. At this time KDE4 NM was not available and KDE3 NM was the only form of NM available to this version of openSuse. In the case where NM is selected over IFUP, other dependant Yast Applications offered no control over the NIC and IP itself. Take the small example of the Yast Firewall. If NM was selected over IFUP, the Yast Firewall offered NO control over the IP. If NM is selected over IFUP, the NIC(s) as a devices, offered no control as Yast defines all dependencies over NIC(s) as a device or multiple devices. If NM is selected over IFUP during Installation, there was no facility to input static IP's or effect any control over NM as Installation only offered the user to choose the alternate NM but not configure it. Poor or No testing of a PC that was on a LAN where NO DHCP Services were offered was obvious. Without DHCP Services, it was not possible to Install updates as IFUP could not provide nominated DNS Services. IFUP could only set a static IP, but failed to provide DNS Services despite being present in IFUP's configuration. NM also suffered at the fate of DHCP Services. Despite Static Services being present in NM, the presence of DHCP Services overruled static entries in NM as these were ignored. NM only provided static services so configured, when DHCP Services were Not present. The control over NIC cards became a total IF issue. Any variant from IFUP using DHCP Services and the LAN also providing them, meant we lost control over the NIC(s).* We need to decide IF we need to maintain both IFUP and NM for control over NIC(s) as of 11.1 we offer almost NO control over any variant so configured* The downline application to configure WIFI, VPN, IPV6 etc are all compromised. 2 totally different methods of applying downline services need provision for the rest of further developments. I do not think it is realistic for us to continue to maintain both IFUP and NM as the down line repercussions are so huge and without control over an IP and DNS we might as well stop development. It is not sufficient to depend on DHCP Services always being present as we then assume a condition that may not be set. This would be akin to stating in the"Installation Requirements" and adding a line stating that OpenSuse requires DHCP Services to be present for the software to "Install and Function Correctly" Either we dump NM or IFUP. Certainly unless Yast can control NM it must go OR if we want to take the other down-line services of VPN, WIFI, IPV6; IFUP must go. Request for Comment needs to start, both in the technical requirements of a singular control and the usability of same. The above statements are all supported by various bugs, mostly opened by the author. Any Commnts please? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306984
Feature changed by: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) Feature #306984, revision 3 Title: Create a Single way of Managing NIC Devices openSUSE-11.2: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Scott Couston (zcnnnnzc) Description: In Opensuse 11.1 the decision was made to remove Yast control of Network Manager. This created 2 semi-dependant ways of managing Network Interface Cards, that in retrospect offered poor or impossible singular control. This decision may have had technical merit however it created a huge deal of complication and bugs as a result. At this time KDE4 NM was not available and KDE3 NM was the only form of NM available to this version of openSuse. In the case where NM is selected over IFUP, other dependant Yast Applications offered no control over the NIC and IP itself. Take the small example of the Yast Firewall. If NM was selected over IFUP, the Yast Firewall offered NO control over the IP. If NM is selected over IFUP, the NIC(s) as a devices, offered no control as Yast defines all dependencies over NIC(s) as a device or multiple devices. If NM is selected over IFUP during Installation, there was no facility to input static IP's or effect any control over NM as Installation only offered the user to choose the alternate NM but not configure it. Poor or No testing of a PC that was on a LAN where NO DHCP Services were offered was obvious. Without DHCP Services, it was not possible to Install updates as IFUP could not provide nominated DNS Services. IFUP could only set a static IP, but failed to provide DNS Services despite being present in IFUP's configuration. NM also suffered at the fate of DHCP Services. Despite Static Services being present in NM, the presence of DHCP Services overruled static entries in NM as these were ignored. NM only provided static services so configured, when DHCP Services were Not present. The control over NIC cards became a total IF issue. Any variant from IFUP using DHCP Services and the LAN also providing them, meant we lost control over the NIC(s).* We need to decide IF we need to maintain both IFUP and NM for control over NIC(s) as of 11.1 we offer almost NO control over any variant so configured* The downline application to configure WIFI, VPN, IPV6 etc are all compromised. 2 totally different methods of applying downline services need provision for the rest of further developments. I do not think it is realistic for us to continue to maintain both IFUP and NM as the down line repercussions are so huge and without control over an IP and DNS we might as well stop development. It is not sufficient to depend on DHCP Services always being present as we then assume a condition that may not be set. This would be akin to stating in the"Installation Requirements" and adding a line stating that OpenSuse requires DHCP Services to be present for the software to "Install and Function Correctly" Either we dump NM or IFUP. Certainly unless Yast can control NM it must go OR if we want to take the other down-line services of VPN, WIFI, IPV6; IFUP must go. Request for Comment needs to start, both in the technical requirements of a singular control and the usability of same. The above statements are all supported by various bugs, mostly opened by the author. Any Commnts please? + Discussion: + #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2009-08-06 14:19:55) + Cannot dump ifup because I am not going to use networkmanager ("what is + that, even? why would I suddenly need it for a server?") -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306984
Feature changed by: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Feature #306984, revision 4 Title: Create a Single way of Managing NIC Devices - openSUSE-11.2: Unconfirmed + openSUSE-11.2: Rejected by Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) + reject date: 2010-11-15 10:36:32 + reject reason: Not done in time for openSUSE 11.2 Priority Requester: Important + openSUSE-11.4: Unconfirmed + Priority + Requester: Important Requested by: Scott Couston (zcnnnnzc) Description: In Opensuse 11.1 the decision was made to remove Yast control of Network Manager. This created 2 semi-dependant ways of managing Network Interface Cards, that in retrospect offered poor or impossible singular control. This decision may have had technical merit however it created a huge deal of complication and bugs as a result. At this time KDE4 NM was not available and KDE3 NM was the only form of NM available to this version of openSuse. In the case where NM is selected over IFUP, other dependant Yast Applications offered no control over the NIC and IP itself. Take the small example of the Yast Firewall. If NM was selected over IFUP, the Yast Firewall offered NO control over the IP. If NM is selected over IFUP, the NIC(s) as a devices, offered no control as Yast defines all dependencies over NIC(s) as a device or multiple devices. If NM is selected over IFUP during Installation, there was no facility to input static IP's or effect any control over NM as Installation only offered the user to choose the alternate NM but not configure it. Poor or No testing of a PC that was on a LAN where NO DHCP Services were offered was obvious. Without DHCP Services, it was not possible to Install updates as IFUP could not provide nominated DNS Services. IFUP could only set a static IP, but failed to provide DNS Services despite being present in IFUP's configuration. NM also suffered at the fate of DHCP Services. Despite Static Services being present in NM, the presence of DHCP Services overruled static entries in NM as these were ignored. NM only provided static services so configured, when DHCP Services were Not present. The control over NIC cards became a total IF issue. Any variant from IFUP using DHCP Services and the LAN also providing them, meant we lost control over the NIC(s).* We need to decide IF we need to maintain both IFUP and NM for control over NIC(s) as of 11.1 we offer almost NO control over any variant so configured* The downline application to configure WIFI, VPN, IPV6 etc are all compromised. 2 totally different methods of applying downline services need provision for the rest of further developments. I do not think it is realistic for us to continue to maintain both IFUP and NM as the down line repercussions are so huge and without control over an IP and DNS we might as well stop development. It is not sufficient to depend on DHCP Services always being present as we then assume a condition that may not be set. This would be akin to stating in the"Installation Requirements" and adding a line stating that OpenSuse requires DHCP Services to be present for the software to "Install and Function Correctly" Either we dump NM or IFUP. Certainly unless Yast can control NM it must go OR if we want to take the other down-line services of VPN, WIFI, IPV6; IFUP must go. Request for Comment needs to start, both in the technical requirements of a singular control and the usability of same. The above statements are all supported by various bugs, mostly opened by the author. Any Commnts please? - - Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2009-08-06 14:19:55) Cannot dump ifup because I am not going to use networkmanager ("what is that, even? why would I suddenly need it for a server?") -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/306984
participants (1)
-
fate_noreply＠suse.de