Description of problem: system-config-network uses the file route-${DeviceId} to save static routes defined in GUI. However, that file may contain old custom style and system-config-network will remove the file upon save even if the route has not been modified in the GUI. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): system-config-network-1.3.99.12-1.el5 How reproducible: 100% reproducible Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a "/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0" with options that system-config-network does not parse 192.168.1.1/24 dev eth0 table 2 default via 192.168.254 table 2 2. Run system-config-network, modify a param for eth0 leaving the route untouched 3. Save Actual results: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0 is removed Expected results: /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0 is left untouched Additional info: The file is removed NCDevice.py is save() by this portion of code: 260 def save( self ): [...] 370 371 # FIXME: RFE [174974] limitation of setting routing 372 if self.StaticRoutes and len( self.StaticRoutes ) > 0: 373 rconf = ConfRoute( self.DeviceId ) 374 for key in rconf.keys(): 375 del rconf[key] 376 p = 0 377 for route in self.StaticRoutes: 378 if route.Address: 379 rconf['ADDRESS'+str( p )] = route.Address 380 if route.Netmask: 381 rconf['NETMASK'+str( p )] = route.Netmask 382 if route.Gateway: 383 rconf['GATEWAY'+str( p )] = route.Gateway 384 p = p + 1 385 rconf.write() 386 else: 387 # remove route file, if no routes defined 388 unlink( netconfpkg.ROOT + SYSCONFDEVICEDIR + self.DeviceId + '.route' ) 389 unlink( netconfpkg.ROOT + SYSCONFDEVICEDIR + 'route-' + self.DeviceId ) 390 As system-config-network has not parsed the existing option in the route-eth0 file, self.StaticRoutes is empty and therefore the unlink in invoked.
yes, bug. Easily fixable.
This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion, but this component is not scheduled to be updated in the current Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. If you would like this request to be reviewed for the next minor release, ask your support representative to set the next rhel-x.y flag to "?".
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2012-0231.html