John Mahoney wrote:
2009/7/18 Rui Tiago Cação Matos <tiagomatos gmail com>
2009/7/18
Ed W <lists wildgooses com>:
> Hi, I have a need for some powerful dialup
logic for use with a router box
> which will pick the best available network from a 3G datacard, wifi
> connection, ethernet connection and also offer a dial-on-demand
ppp dialup
> link if nothing else works. (Ideally also the datacard will
change priority
> depending on what network we are roaming too and how fast it's
getting a
> connection)
>
> network-manager looks like a very interesting option for this,
although
> currently it appears to only work in a GUI mode? How's this
likely to
> change going forward?
>
> (Additional problem is that I have so far not been successful
getting dbus
> to build under uclibc...)
>
> Thanks for a heads up on where the project is going with regards
to a
> gui-less version
Read Dan's blog:
http://blogs.gnome.org/dcbw/2009/06/25/networkmanager-and-connman/
Rui
That is good reading, but it really does not directly answer the
question. I believe the short answer is no there is not a current
method to run NM 100% headless and do everything you want to do. The
closest attempt at a headless implementation appears to be
cnetworkmanager which is written in Python. Cnetworkmanager currently
appears to do most configuration settings for ethernet and wifi. Also,
I do not believe NM supports dial-up ppp, but I may be wrong.
If anyone knows about a headless implementation I would love to know
about how people are doing so.
Agreed - I had already read this blog article and that was why I was
interested in the roadmap of NM/MM
Dependencies are always going to be the killer for smaller platforms
though - I'm still not sure how to get glib-dbus built for uclibc, but
that's hopefully a solveable problem. In the case of cnetworkmanager
this is now adding a python dependency which is ok, but you just added
another 15MB to a 6MB base platform, so clearly it's desirable to keep
dependencies lightweight where possible
So, I think it's fair to re-ask the question (and it came up on the
list a few months back also). Does anyone see any plans to tease the
frontend and backend completely apart (perhaps with only a dbus
communication channel between them)? The idea being that you end up
with a headless management daemon and a control application (perhaps
one of several)?
Thanks
Ed W
|
