NetworkManager dependency

Jorge VillaseƱor salinasv at
Sun Dec 27 20:02:40 EST 2015

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Michael McConville <mmcco at>

> Ethan Blanton wrote:
> > Gary Kramlich spake unto us the following wisdom:
> > > Wait, are we actually talking about disabling by default instead of
> > > updating to the newer version that'll make things better?
> >
> > I think they're two separate issues, actually.  But a newer version of
> > NM won't really *fix* its crapitudity, it's rather endemic.  It will
> > just take care of some specific complaints we have (the nature of
> > which I don't recall at the moment).
> >
> > I am ambivalent on enable or disable by default; I simply said that it
> > may be reasonable to disable by default.  Mike simply uses systems
> > that don't work properly with a wide range of software (including NM),
> > so he doesn't like it. ;-)
> True, to an extent.  :-)  NM does seem like an eminently optional add-on
> feature, though. As far as I can tell, we only use it to get a hint of
> whether the network is up.
> I'm also biased against NM in general, having fought its VPN-related
> bugs in the past.

I agree with explicit configuration so users know what they are building.

I would suggest we take our biases out and let the user or distributor
what they want in their builds.

I don't recall which functionallity does NM provide to us, if it worth it
or not,
but I think that is a different discussion.


A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Devel mailing list