Hide Forgot
This is a tracking bug for Change: No ifcfg by default For more details, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoIfcfgFiles Do not include NetworkManager support for legacy network configuration files by in new installations. If you encounter a bug related to this Change, please do not comment here. Instead create a new bug and set it to block this bug.
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 36 development cycle. Changing version to 36.
Today we reached the Code Complete (testable) milestone in the F36 schedule: https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-36/f-36-key-tasks.html All code for this change should be complete enough for testing. You can indicate this by setting the bug status to MODIFIED. (If the code is fully complete, you can go ahead and set it to ON_QA.) If you need to defer this Change to F37, please needinfo bcotton.
Current tasks: - split the ifcfg plugin into a subpackage - ensure that it is not installed by default - make cloud-init depend on the new subpackage
We have reached the 'Change complete (100% complete) deadline in the Fedora Linux 36 release schedule. At this time, all Changes should be fully complete. Indicate this by setting this tracking bug to ON_QA. If you need to defer this Change to a subsequent release, please needinfo me.
Proposed as a Blocker for 36-beta by Fedora user bengal using the blocker tracking app because: The update splits the ifcfh-rh plugin (needed to read and write connection profiles in the ifcfg format in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts) to a separate package according to [1][2]; in this way, it will not be installed by default in new systems. It will be kept installed upon upgrade, though. I know it's quite late but there were issues with anaconda that are now solved (see comments on the bodhi update [3]). [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoIfcfgFiles [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2045875 [3] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e675404750
To be clear, was the blocker proposal here intended to mean "we want to put this feature in Beta, but there's a freeze, please pull it in"? If so, it should be proposed as a freeze exception, not a blocker. It should only be proposed as a blocker if something will be badly broken unless we pull in this update.
-5 in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/677 , rejected as a blocker, on the basis that no criteria violation or major bug was identified here. If there's more to this than it appears, we can revote.
(In reply to Adam Williamson from comment #6) > To be clear, was the blocker proposal here intended to mean "we want to put > this feature in Beta, but there's a freeze, please pull it in"? If so, it > should be proposed as a freeze exception, not a blocker. Yes. Do you know how I can do that? Still from https://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/propose_bug but marked as freeze exception instead?
Yes, but since I'm here I'll just do it manually, like this:
FEDORA-2022-e675404750 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-e675404750
+3 Beta FE in https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/blocker-review/issue/677 , marking accepted.
FEDORA-2022-e675404750 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
F36 was released today. If this Change did not land in the release, please notify bcotton as soon as possible.