On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 at 19:50, Noah Meyerhans <no...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:06:38PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > Do the cloud images use avahi at all? Assuming I'm looking at the right > > manifest: > > > > https://cdimage.debian.org/images/cloud/trixie/daily/20250324-2061/debian-13-generic-amd64-daily-20250324-2061.json > > No, in fact most cloud environments don't support multicast networking > at all, so disabling it is entirely safe. > > > it seems not, so how about this: I'll take a personal risk and we can > > try once more with the pkg conflict. I'll reinstate the package, with > > an added "Conflicts: avahi-daemon" so that users have to choose one or > > the other, and avahi is the default so it always wins unless someone > > has very specific and customized use cases like yours. > > That works for me. > > > If everything goes fine, then all good. If instead the TC escalates > > again to DAM, then I'll remove the package again, and work to find an > > alternative that you can use with networkd in the cloud images, and try > > and find time to implement it. > > > > How does this sound? > > Well, we obviously would prefer to find a solution that doesn't involve > removing networkd altogether, should it come to that, but I'd hope we > don't get to that point.
LOL, he already escalated, not even had time to rinse the changes through the CI and he already got them to send a warning. Guess he had the complaint ready to send to DAM in the draft folder. That answers the question of whether it's safe to add back resolved then - you mentioned you don't need the stub resolver, but just something to manage dhcp -> networkd -> resolve.conf, right? I think I can cook something up, I'll get on that next, who needs sleep anyway
