On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:27:45 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: >* Marco d'Itri <m...@linux.it> [240903 14:04]: >> My position is that I am happy for Debian to have the option of netplan >> but I do not think that it should be installed by default, because it is >> an abstraction which adds complexity and that nobody asked for other >> than its developers. >> >> And this is an orthogonal issue with deciding if ifupdown is appropriate >> for a modern system (I have been using it for close to 30 years and at >> this point I think that it has served its purpose and there are better >> defaults...). > >I want to echo all of this. All my customers sites are currently >migrating away from ifupdown to networkd, and they don't need or >want an intermediate layer. > >For the desktop(-like) systems, NetworkManager works nicely, again >without a need for an intermediate layer.
This, and this. >Again, having the option is nice. But I don't see netplan as a >useful default. And, choosing Netplan as a default doesn't solve the issue, since we'd still have to decide what we'd use below it by default, leaving us with the same hard decision: NetworkManager which bears its mock name NetworkDamager for a reason, systemd-networkd which is kind of unsuitable for desktop(-like) systems, comes from the much-hated systemd world (thus igniting a systemd debate everywhere it is mentioned) and contains way to much not-invented-here code regarding IPv6, or ifupdown, which is outdated if I'm being friendly, and a Debianism. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
