Re: Headless version for routers...



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
_______________________________________________
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

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


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]