Minimal install diff from F16 to F19 (TC6)

Colin Walters walters at
Thu Jun 20 18:38:37 UTC 2013

On Thu, 2013-06-20 at 13:15 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:

> I think most "traditional" system admins see a running NM daemon as an
> additional point of failure in a static network.  If my server's network
> setup is static, I don't want a daemon running attempting to "manage"
> it.  If it has a bug, gets misconfigured, etc., it might do something to
> screw up an otherwise working setup.

Yes, it's just not easy to do without creating race conditions.  Various
other components use NetworkManager as an API, and if just called exit()
arbitrarily it'd introduce the problems described here:

This point has been raised repeatedly, the developers are aware that
it'd be nicer for NM to not show up in "ps" in these situations, but the
reason it's not done is it's nontrivial and there are a lot of other
things in the priority queue.

> I understand that some servers/setups may be able to take advantage of
> NM functionality, but assuming that all servers _need_ NM is too much.
> This is all IMHO of course.

It's not about "all", but about having a plan, executing on it and
staying on top of major regressions.  There's been a fair amount of
continual improvement, and stuff like the revamped nmcli should help a

More information about the devel mailing list