Bugzilla Bug 185888

When i upgraded to dhcp-3.1.0_rc2, networkmanager stoped resolving IPs. dhcdbd
was triggering dhclient to get an IP, but dhclient wasn't answering back. This
was provided by a patch with an -x option, but according to the ebuild for
dhcp-3.1.0_rc2 the newest dhcpcd has its own -x which conflicts.

Right now im just staying with dhcp-3.0.6 which works with the patch.

I can confirm this happens also on my box (~x86).

same problem here on amd64 arch.

using dhclient directly, the net-if obtains the ip from the dhcp server.

:S

Oops, forgot to say : i'm on ~amd64 too.

I can confirm this bug using NM 0.6.5 an dhcp-3.1.0 on ~x86.
Reverting back to dhcp-3.0.6 worked like a charm. 

Yes, Uberlord alerted me of the issue before the bug was filed, already
discussing the issue with upstream.

url with the bug upstream added.

Uberlord can we mask dhcp-3.1 for a bit ?

I'm loath to package.mask it as 3.1 contains a lot of fixes to the dhcp server
part of it.

Maybe we could rename the NetworkManager option to -X instead?

just depend on the versions of <net-misc/dhcp-3.1.0 in networkmanager

*** Bug 186358 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

To fix this, dhcdbd has to be compiled with the CFLAG option:
-DDHCLIENT_EXTENDED_OPTION_ENVIRONMENT=0

Add this to dhcdbd-2.8-r1.ebuild:
src_compile() {
        emake RPM_OPT_FLAGS="-DDHCLIENT_EXTENDED_OPTION_ENVIRONMENT=0 " || die
}

After this modification everything works fine again.

*** Bug 187027 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 190883 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

*** Bug 190937 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

HOw about putting a blocker inside networkmanager.ebuild?

Something like RDEPEND="(...) !>=dhcp-3.1.0"

How about either bumping to dhcdbd 3.0 or apply my proposed patch?

Remark: In version 3.0 the code in the DHCLIENT_EXTENDED_OPTION_ENVIRONMENT
areas has been removed.

What does resolved upstream mean? How will this be solved for the end user?

(In reply to comment #16)
> What does resolved upstream mean? How will this be solved for the end user?
> 

It generally means that fixing this is rather non-trivial, so the gentoo devs
prefer to wait for upstream to solve this. 
Until that happens you can put >=net-misc/dhcp-3.1.0 in
/etc/portage/package.mask, if you use dhcdbd and NetworkManager.

I would claim the issue IS solved by upstream in version 3.0 of dhcdbd and
COULD also be solved for version 2.8 of dhcdbd if compiled with
-DDHCLIENT_EXTENDED_OPTION_ENVIRONMENT=0 (which gives basically the same
result).

Are there any objections?

Please be so kind and test either options I proposed to see if it works (not
only for me).

Thank you for breaking stable.

Reopening, since its now broken on stable, I am working on 3.0 but it requires
a development version of dbus so I am currently patching it using avahi as a
template, so its gonna take a bit to get 3.0 in the tree, but I will be fast
tracking it to stable.

And regarding Comment #19, comments like that do absolutely nothing to help the
situation (in fact, they make it worse, as we are doing this for free - if you
want to see it get done faster, pay me to do it - I just spent 4 hours *at my
actual job* working on this to get it fixed, instead of actually making money.)
and remember that just because I am a dev, doesn't mean I am here for you - I
am here for me first and foremost, and if it works for me great, if it works
for you thats great too, but I really don't give a flying fbomb either way.  I
am doing this for me not you, and unless you pay me to care, I really don't. 
Thank you for being so understanding, also, since you are obviously clueless,
the stablization was done without letting the maintainers know - check the bug
quoted in the changelog, there is no mention of NetworkManager or dhcdbd in
there, but they were stablized because of deps.  If you can't handle Gentoo,
and "breaking stable" then perhaps you should head off to another distro rather
than waste your time and mine with stupid comments.

You mean you had nothing to do with networkmanager going stable?
Still it has been broken in ~arch since dhcp-3.1 did go there. And according to
uberlord (#190775) he told you about it months ago. Does not a change in deps
work at least waiting for a better/more suitable solution (which I have faith
in you, the devs, will provide sooner or later) and a comment about it in the
ebuild? Or have I missed something fundamental?

(In reply to comment #22)
> You mean you had nothing to do with networkmanager going stable?

Right.

> Still it has been broken in ~arch since dhcp-3.1 did go there. And according
> to uberlord (#190775) he told you about it months ago. 

Bug severity and priority is a function of time.


> Does not a change in deps
> work at least waiting for a better/more suitable solution (which I have faith
> in you, the devs, will provide sooner or later) and a comment about it in the
> ebuild? Or have I missed something fundamental?

Yes, you missed it causing upgrade-downgrade-cycles:
  http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-337517.html

(In reply to comment #21)
> And regarding Comment #19, comments like that do absolutely nothing to help the
> situation (in fact, they make it worse, as we are doing this for free - if you
> want to see it get done faster, pay me to do it - I just spent 4 hours *at my
> actual job* working on this to get it fixed, instead of actually making money.)
> and remember that just because I am a dev, doesn't mean I am here for you - I
> am here for me first and foremost, and if it works for me great, if it works
> for you thats great too, but I really don't give a flying fbomb either way.  I
> am doing this for me not you, and unless you pay me to care, I really don't. 
> Thank you for being so understanding, also, since you are obviously clueless,
> the stablization was done without letting the maintainers know - check the bug
> quoted in the changelog, there is no mention of NetworkManager or dhcdbd in
> there, but they were stablized because of deps.  If you can't handle Gentoo,
> and "breaking stable" then perhaps you should head off to another distro rather
> than waste your time and mine with stupid comments.
> 
This is the first time I speak in a matter of this kind, but I need to say
something.

Steev, you are right, you are a dev and you don't make money with this, but I
don't think you are here just for yourself (I am a dev too :) ), please calm
down and just ignore those newbies.

On the other hand, as a user, I want to say to Peter Hjalmarsson something:
Please, don't blame anyone, a linux distro is powered by developers all arround
the world and people who provide "feedback" opening bugs, requesting
interesting things, etc... and users should never blame on any product, because
you even didn't pay anything for what you have anyways...

To sum up, if you don't have anything to contribute to an open project, just
don't say anything, specially when talking to devs :)

dhcdbd 3.0 is now in the tree, this can be considered fixed, I've opened
another bug for stablizing it.