> On 29 Nov 2024, at 19:04, Adolf Belka wrote: > > Hi Michael, > > On 29/11/2024 15:10, Michael Tremer wrote: >> Hello, >> Thanks for testing this in production. Good to know this all works. >>> On 29 Nov 2024, at 11:21, Adolf Belka wrote: >>> >>> Hi Michael, >>> >>> I had previously tested your rapid_commit patch on my vm network system. However as that network does not have a problem with the rapid_commit option it was not the best test. >>> >>> I said that i would test it out on my production system after the visit to my family. I have now got around to that. >>> >>> My new ISP, that bought out the very good technically based ISP I used to have, is one of the ones that has a DHCP server that just times out if you have the rapid_commit option in the dhcpcd config file. >>> >>> So I updated my production IPFire to Core-Update 190 Development Build: master/1e2abd66 >>> >>> After rebooting the connection was lost as the rapid_commit option is on by default. >>> >>> I then ran the setup program and unchecked the rapid commit box on the red interface and then rebooted and the connection was running. >>> >>> Another reboot still had the connection running. >>> >>> So I can confirm that the patch is working . >>> >>> The only thing that came to mind is when we do the update people who have removed or commented out the rapid_commit option in dhcpcd.conf will lose their connection. >>> >>> So either >>> >>> * we need to have the update check if the rapid_commit option has been commented out or has been removed and then disable the rapid commit option for the red interface. >>> >>> or >>> >>> * we need to make sure that it is well communicated that anyone who has disabled the rapid_commit option needs to run the setup program after the upgrade (maybe before the reboot) to disable the option for the red interface. >> If we wanted to be really fancy we could check if someone has modified the configuration file and if so we can automatically set the setting in /var/ipfire/ethernet/settings. I am not sure how reliable this would be, but it is an option. > > I could have a look at putting something together for this and test it out on my vm system and then submit a patch for it, if that is fine with you. I would like to keep the solution that we have right now and see what happens once it is out there… I wouldn’t want to over-engineer this all just yet. > > Regards, > Adolf. > >>> We can discuss this at our next conf call meeting on 3rd or 4th Dec. >> We need to bring more things back to the list because there are currently only so few people joining the call. I would also prefer to sort things out sooner on the list if possible and keep the call as free as possible for more general discussion. >> -Michael >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Adolf. >>> > > -- > Sent from my laptop