Hello. The default Fedora dhclient-script tries to use file from initscripts package unconditionally. If those files are not in place, we get the following complaints (the address is still assigned though): /sbin/dhclient-script: line 96: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions: No such file or directory /sbin/dhclient-script: line 104: need_config: command not found /sbin/dhclient-script: configuration for devnet not found. Continuing with defaults. /sbin/dhclient-script: line 112: source_config: command not found /sbin/dhclient-script: line 96: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/network-functions: No such file or directory /sbin/dhclient-script: line 104: need_config: command not found /sbin/dhclient-script: configuration for devnet not found. Continuing with defaults. /sbin/dhclient-script: line 112: source_config: command not found /sbin/dhclient-script: line 68: change_resolv_conf: command not found One could ask, how could the system run without initscripts package. The answer would be that the files don't belong to initscripts, but to net-scripts part of it, which could be packaged separately. More details about this split could be found in bug #195353. Could we have a little more checks for file sourcing and function calls? Thank you. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): dhclient-3.0.4-20.fc6
Well, 195353 is CLOSED WONTFIX, so I'm not going to modify the dhclient-script. This one is CLOSED WONTFIX. I can understand wanting a different network configuration subsystem, but it becomes really difficult to abstract those layers and at some point, you do need some sort of glue between all of the parts the distribution provides and the parts you want to replace. If I was to conditionalize the sourcing of various initscripts files, how would I handle the instances where I want to run one of the functions provided by those files? Is your netscripts replacement going to provide functions by the same name? If so, great, but what about other replacements? This is a reasonable project, but I think the approach is wrong. Closing this bug since 195353 is closed.