12.04.2 LTS, new install, network broken

Dave Woyciesjes woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net
Tue Jul 9 17:07:07 UTC 2013

On 07/09/2013 12:43 PM, Tom H wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Dave Woyciesjes
> <woyciesjes at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 07/09/2013 12:14 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Avi Greenbury <lists at avi.co> wrote:
>>>> Gene Heskett wrote:
>>>>> The question is, can NM and resolvconf be excised without excising the
>>>>> rest
>>>>> of the system? TBD. In any event their initiation scripts can be nuked
>>>>> if
>>>>> found.
>>>> You should be fine:
>>>>       avi at fantastic:~$ apt-get --simulate remove network-manager
>>>> resolvconf
>>>>       NOTE: This is only a simulation!
>>>>             apt-get needs root privileges for real execution.
>>>>             Keep also in mind that locking is deactivated,
>>>>             so don't depend on the relevance to the real current
>>>> situation!
>>>>       Reading package lists... Done
>>>>       Building dependency tree
>>>>       Reading state information... Done
>>>>       The following packages were automatically installed and are no
>>>> longer required:
>>>>         libllvm3.1:i386 linux-headers-3.8.0-18
>>>> linux-headers-3.8.0-18-generic linux-image-3.8.0-18-generic
>>>> linux-image-extra-3.8.0-18-generic
>>>>       Use 'apt-get autoremove' to remove them.
>>>>       The following packages will be REMOVED
>>>>         network-manager network-manager-gnome resolvconf ubuntu-minimal
>>>>       0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 66 not upgraded.
>>>>       Remv network-manager-gnome []
>>>>       Remv network-manager []
>>>>       Remv ubuntu-minimal [1.299]
>>>>       Remv resolvconf [1.69ubuntu1]
>>>>       avi at fantastic:~$
>>> Is advising people to remove ubuntu-minimal (especially as a list
>>> admin) appropriate? If you don't want to use resolvconf on a system,
>>> disable it. If the few KB/MB that it takes up disturb you, use equivs
>>> to create a dummy replacement resolvconf package.
>> Advising most people to remove it? No, not a good idea. But Gene H. is not
>> most people. Also, he asked a specific question, and got the answer.
> 1) I'm sure that Google differentiates between advice given to Gene
> and advice given to someone else...

	Fair wise-crack on me.

> 2) Advising anyone to remove ubuntu-minimal is silly.

	For most situations & people, sure.

> 3) I don't see how you (and one other person in this thread) think
> that Gene knows what he's doing when he could only fix a networking
> problem by copying some files over from another installation rather
> than finding the root cause and correcting the problem directly.

	Not sure about the other person, but I can vouch for his skills by 
knowing him for a bit from another list.

	You do bring up a god point; While giving Gene the answer to his 
questions, a disclaimer of sorts would be a good idea - explaining just 
why removing it is not suggested.

--- Dave Woyciesjes
--- ICQ# 905818
--- CompTIA A+ Certified IT Tech - http://certification.comptia.org/
--- HDI Certified Support Center Analyst - http://www.ThinkHDI.com/
             Registered Linux user number 464583

"Computers have lots of memory but no imagination."
"The problem with troubleshooting is that trouble shoots back."
  - from some guy on the internet.

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list