When dhclient is invoked from NetworkManager, it does not appear that the scripts in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d are executed. The callout to those scripts is in /sbin/dhclient-script, but NetworkManager substitutes its own /usr/libexec/nm-dhcp-client.action in place of dhclient-script, and the scripts do not get invoked.
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 16:28:13 -0500 Robert Nichols wrote:
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
This is merely another example of why NetworkManager is not even remotely a replacement for network. All those scripts will still work the same way they always did if you use network. If you use NetworkManager it has a completely separate and incompatible way to do the same thing, but it is such a big improvement that there is no documentation on how to use it :-).
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 16:28 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
When dhclient is invoked from NetworkManager, it does not appear that the scripts in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d are executed. The callout to those scripts is in /sbin/dhclient-script, but NetworkManager substitutes its own /usr/libexec/nm-dhcp-client.action in place of dhclient-script, and the scripts do not get invoked.
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
-- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.
This is a question for the network-manager list at: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
I thought we had gotten passed the "network is better than networkmanager" debate but I guess not. NM is so much better for >90% of users but there are always diehards out there. But it is true that good documentation for NM is lacking. -- ======================================================================= Man is the measure of all things. -- Protagoras ======================================================================= Aaron Konstam telephone: (210) 656-0355 e-mail: akonstam@sbcglobal.net
On 03/26/2010 10:23 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 16:28 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
When dhclient is invoked from NetworkManager, it does not appear that the scripts in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d are executed. The callout to those scripts is in /sbin/dhclient-script, but NetworkManager substitutes its own /usr/libexec/nm-dhcp-client.action in place of dhclient-script, and the scripts do not get invoked.
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
-- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.
This is a question for the network-manager list at: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
I thought we had gotten passed the "network is better than networkmanager" debate but I guess not. NM is so much better for>90% of users but there are always diehards out there. But it is true that good documentation for NM is lacking.
Thanks for the list pointer. I'll try there.
Yes, there are places where NetworkManager is extremely useful, such as on my laptop. OTOH, it provides no benefit whatsoever on my desktop machines with permanent, wired connections. Unfortunately, my laptop really needs one of those scripts in dhclient.d .
On 03/26/2010 08:23 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 16:28 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
When dhclient is invoked from NetworkManager, it does not appear that the scripts in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d are executed. The callout to those scripts is in /sbin/dhclient-script, but NetworkManager substitutes its own /usr/libexec/nm-dhcp-client.action in place of dhclient-script, and the scripts do not get invoked.
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
This is a question for the network-manager list at: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
I thought we had gotten passed the "network is better than networkmanager" debate but I guess not. NM is so much better for>90% of users but there are always diehards out there. But it is true that good documentation for NM is lacking.
Not to pick nits, Aaron, but there are some things that NM simply cannot or will not do correctly (e.g. it won't even bloody start unless you have a user logged in so it's useless for a large number of applications). I'd hardly call the people that have to work around those problems by using the legacy stuff "diehards".
Yes, NM is quite good, but a complete and utter lack of docs for it is a major problem, and it appears the people working on it aren't willing to farm the creation of docs out. I know. I offered to do it at least four times and was met with a deafening silence each time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, C2 Hosting ricks@nerd.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 22643734 Yahoo: origrps2 - - - - "If you can't fix it...duct tape it!" -- Tim Allen - ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On 03/27/2010 04:05 AM, Rick Stevens wrote:
Not to pick nits, Aaron, but there are some things that NM simply cannot or will not do correctly (e.g. it won't even bloody start unless you have a user logged in so it's useless for a large number of applications). I'd hardly call the people that have to work around those problems by using the legacy stuff "diehards".
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NetworkManagerSystemConnections
A cli interface is available in Fedora 13.
Yes, NM is quite good, but a complete and utter lack of docs for it is a major problem, and it appears the people working on it aren't willing to farm the creation of docs out. I know. I offered to do it at least four times and was met with a deafening silence each time.
Did you ever post in the upstream list? You can start with documenting what you are aware of and ask questions when you have doubts.
On 03/26/2010 04:12 PM, Robert Nichols wrote:
On 03/26/2010 10:23 AM, Aaron Konstam wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 16:28 -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:
When dhclient is invoked from NetworkManager, it does not appear that the scripts in /etc/dhcp/dhclient.d are executed. The callout to those scripts is in /sbin/dhclient-script, but NetworkManager substitutes its own /usr/libexec/nm-dhcp-client.action in place of dhclient-script, and the scripts do not get invoked.
How are the functions in the dhclient.d scripts supposed to be preformed now?
-- Bob Nichols "NOSPAM" is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it.
This is a question for the network-manager list at: networkmanager-list@gnome.org
I thought we had gotten passed the "network is better than networkmanager" debate but I guess not. NM is so much better for>90% of users but there are always diehards out there. But it is true that good documentation for NM is lacking.
Thanks for the list pointer. I'll try there.
And now I am quite embarrassed because the answer can be found in, of all places, the manpage for NetworkManager. There's not a whole lot of info in that manpage, but it does cover in detail how scripts in /etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d get executed when an interface changes state, and in particular how data from DHCP options is made available, which is exactly what I need.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 22:40:40 -0500 Robert Nichols wrote:
/etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d get executed when an interface changes state, and in particular how data from DHCP options is made available, which is exactly what I need.
Good luck if you are trying to customize your resolv.conf file though. One of the events NM does NOT report to those scripts is lease renewal, but it does rewrite the resolv.conf file on every lease renewal.
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 15:35 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
Yes, NM is quite good, but a complete and utter lack of docs for it is a major problem, and it appears the people working on it aren't willing to farm the creation of docs out. I know. I offered to do it at least four times and was met with a deafening silence each time.
I agree with the "for"s and "against"s, about NetworkManager, but definitely don't have any sympathy about the documentation situation. Even more so if you've offered to help and they won't even consider that.
That puts documentation into the hands of isolated third parties who will be doing black-box analysis to try and explain how it works, and writing information which will fall out of date when the application changes.
On 03/29/2010 03:26 AM, Tim wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-26 at 15:35 -0700, Rick Stevens wrote:
Yes, NM is quite good, but a complete and utter lack of docs for it is a major problem, and it appears the people working on it aren't willing to farm the creation of docs out. I know. I offered to do it at least four times and was met with a deafening silence each time.
I agree with the "for"s and "against"s, about NetworkManager, but definitely don't have any sympathy about the documentation situation. Even more so if you've offered to help and they won't even consider that.
This claim is unsubstantiated unless there was a posting to the upstream list.
Rahul
-
Aaron Konstam -
Rahul Sundaram -
Rick Stevens -
Robert Nichols -
Tim -
Tom Horsley