Re: [PATCH] removal of libdhcp

[Jeremy Katz <katzj redhat com>]

On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 11:50 -0400, Elliot Peele wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 09:35:30AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-05-20 at 18:40 -1000, David Cantrell wrote:
> > > This patch removes anaconda's use of libdhcp, which also means  
> > > removing libdhcp4client and libdhcp6client.  For static network  
> > > configuration, I am using libnl.  To gather current network interface  
> > > information, I am using libnl.  To control IPv6 autoconf, I read/ 
> > > write /proc since that's all we can do right now.  For DHCP and  
> > > DHCPv6, I run dhclient and dhcp6c, respectively.
> > > 
> > > I'd like everyone to have a look at iface.h and the patch file. It's 
> > > not complete yet, so I probably know about the obvious things (the 
> > > FIXMEs and the useless debugging printfs and the incomplete isys.py 
> > > code and so on). The goal with iface.patch is to get us closer to 
> > > using NetworkManager in stage 1 and stage 2. I envision the NM 
> > > changeover to be just as large, but hopefully by then we will have 
> > > decided to nuke certain parts of loader entirely. Completely 
> > > eliminating libdhcp and friends will be a nice step.
> > 
> > So, I'm going to ask the obvious question which ends up staring us in
> > the face at this point.  Why not use NetworkManager like the rest of the
> > OS *now* instead of making another wheel for ourselves that in all
> > likelihood, will end up having to be maintained for on the order of
> > years.
> 
> What about distros that don't use NetworkManager? Will there be a fall
> back? If we are using NetworkManager with Anaconda will it still able
> able to generate "classic" network configuration?

Honestly, I think that's getting more to the point of "what about
distros that don't use udev/hal" or something along those lines.  A more
constructive thing would be to figure out how NetworkManager doesn't fit
your use cases and try to get those resolved.

But writing out ifcfg-* files is probably still something that will
remain in some form or fashion, but from a UI perspective, interactive
installs may not want to expose a lot of it.

Jeremy