Minimal install diff from F16 to F19 (TC6)

Richard W.M. Jones rjones at
Sat Jun 22 09:53:29 UTC 2013

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:15:37PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh at> said:
> > Mind if I ask why you think this way about NetworkManager? The NM
> > currently shipping in Fedora 19 has full support for managing static
> > NICs, as well as bonding, bridging and VLAN support for enterprise
> > use-cases.
> 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.
> 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.

I have no skin in this game, since I dislike both NM and the
"traditional" scripts.  Here's what I think they should do[*]:

(1) systemctl mask NetworkManager.service

(2) Write a shell script that contains the ifconfig/route add (or ip ...)
commands they need and have it run at boot.  Most simple static
network configs are 2 or 3 commands at most.


[*] Not actually tried this outside of simple VMs ...

Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and
build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported.

More information about the devel mailing list