It seems to me this proposal is just a *tad* too ambitious.
I haven't followed the entirety of all threads about this topic (has
anyone?) but it seems to me we're proposing to do two major changes at
once:
1. replace ifupdown with systemd-networkd
2. unify configuration of networkd and NetworkM
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:27:13PM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
> then?
> And if it does manage some interfaces, it is probably a regression to
> break GUI ne
Hi Steve,
On Fri, 2024-09-27 at 11:01 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:27:13PM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> > So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
> > configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
> > then?
>
> > And
Hi,
On Tue, 2024-09-24 at 15:34 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> My ideas was not so much about switching from one networking daemon to
> another.
> In most cases users will probably stick to the network stack of their chosen
> environment. With systemd-networkd and NetworkManager being good candida
Am 27.09.2024 08:31 schrieb Christian Kastner :On 2024-09-23 13:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a
On 2024-09-23 13:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a way that is common with
> server, cloud
> and other
On 23.09.24 13:33, Richard Lewis wrote:
Lukas Märdian writes:
On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
The benefit that Netplan would provide in suc
Hi,
On 9/22/24 19:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd, but they also want
the configuration interface of networkd.
I'm not sure about that -- I'd expect the "server" group to be split into
- "pets": their IP address doesn't change often
On mån, 2024/09/23 at 10:57:22 +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> Hi Sirius,
>
> Thanks for taking ifupdown-ng for a spin.
No problem at all. Thank you for being patient for my response, I have
been working out some kinks around finit to get the system spitting out a
graphical session. :-D
> On Mon,
Chris Hofstaedtler wrote on 23/09/2024 at 12:25:15+0200:
> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
>> Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
>> > # Why
>> > The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a
>> > maintenance
>> > burden. We've had plenty of discussio
On 9/23/24 13:04, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> It's sad to see that fellow DDs do not seem to care
It's sad to see that in this and the other thread before, the same weak
arguments in favour of netplan are repeated by you without neither
adressing the valid points raised against it, nor providing an act
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 05:48:53PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > > I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
> > >
> > > I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
> > > issues with ifupdown on #debian-admin.
> >
> > The "discussion" was about ifup@eth0 being in a fai
On 23.09.24 13:39, Daniel Gröber wrote:
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:25:15PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
issues with ifupdown on #debian-ad
Le lundi, 23 septembre 2024, 13.04:41 h CEST Lukas Märdian a écrit :
> On 22.09.24 12:22, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > * Lukas Märdian [240920 13:13]:
> >> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> >> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd
* Lukas Märdian [240923 07:05]:
> As described in the "Proposal" section and first answer of the FAQ, it's all
> about consistency.
>
> There seems to be a tendency for moving towards a hybrid stack, using
> sd-networkd and NetworkManager in different contexts/use-cases. But having
> fragmented w
Lukas Märdian writes:
> On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
>
>> So on desktop installations including NetworkManager, netplan will
>> be
>> configured to do nothing? Why install netplan at all on desktop systems
>> then?
>
> Because it allows to add configuration in a way that is common with serve
Hi,
On 23.09.2024 ÖS 2:09, Lukas Märdian wrote:
But about working towards unified network configuration.
-- Lukas
So, is it "Let's include it in a dormant state for desktop systems
today, so we can go netplan-only in Trixie+1"?
I personally can't fathom why there's a great push about netpl
On Sep 23, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> As described in the "Proposal" section and first answer of the FAQ, it's all
> about consistency.
>
> There seems to be a tendency for moving towards a hybrid stack, using
> sd-networkd and NetworkManager in different contexts/use-cases. But having
> fragmented
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:25:15PM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
> > I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
>
> I find this quite funny, given a recent discussion about IPv6 dad
> issues with ifupdown on #debian-admin.
The "discussion" was about
Lukas Märdian writes:
> On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
>> On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>>> On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>>> The benefit that Netplan would provide in such cases is that
>>> debian-in
On 23.09.24 12:27, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
feasible solution many times in previous
stency
and usability in this regard.
PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most
actionable option that we have on the table and strikes a good compromise. As a
replacement for ifupdown is overdue, we should adopt our network stack for
Trixie.
d-i coul
Hi,
On Mon, 2024-09-23 at 12:22 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> > > I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> > > feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefo
On 22.09.24 23:59, Josh Triplett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
* Pierre-Elliott Bécue [240923 11:34]:
> Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
> > # Why
> > The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a
> > maintenance
> > burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is
> > that we
> > want to get ri
Hi!
On 22.09.24 15:58, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
to a list of frequently asked questions, instead o
* Holger Levsen [240923 12:05]:
> > ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to install it.
>
> sure.
Except that right now it has an open r-c bug since June 25, and is
missing from testing since August 6th.
If people want to continue having it, somebody who wants to work on
it need
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:04:06AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
> Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
> appropriate dependency for the base system.
ah! thanks for pointing this out.
> ifupdown2 will still be aro
On 23.09.24 11:04, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 23, Holger Levsen wrote:
ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
appropriate dependency for the base system.
ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to ins
Lukas Märdian wrote on 20/09/2024 at 13:12:36+0200:
> # Why
> The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a maintenance
> burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is that
> we
> want to get rid of it.
I like ifupdown. It's simple and just works.
I
On Sep 23, Holger Levsen wrote:
> ifupdown2 is like ifupdown, just rewritten in python.
Yes, that's the problem: there was a consensus that it is not an
appropriate dependency for the base system.
ifupdown2 will still be around for anybody who wants to install it.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.as
Hi Sirius,
Thanks for taking ifupdown-ng for a spin.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 08:22:51AM +0200, Sirius wrote:
> > If you want no belss or whistles, then install neither of ifupdown,
> > network-manager nor systemd-networkd, and operate your network using ip
> > and (unless you also consider that a
On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:14:39AM +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> * Holger Levsen [240923 10:06]:
> > I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
> In the older thread, it was pointed out that ifupdown2 might be
> currently in a bad place maintenance-wise;
> https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdow
* Holger Levsen [240923 10:06]:
> I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
In the older thread, it was pointed out that ifupdown2 might be
currently in a bad place maintenance-wise;
https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdown2/pulse/monthly and
https://github.com/CumulusNetworks/ifupdown2/graphs/cont
hi,
I miss ifupdown2 in this discussion.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Change is coming whether you like it or not.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On sön, 2024/09/22 at 23:41:56 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Netplan seems like *different* bells and whistles, rather than none.
True.
> If you want no belss or whistles, then install neither of ifupdown,
> network-manager nor systemd-networkd, and operate your network using ip
> and (unless
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:30:12PM +0200, Andrea Pappacoda wrote:
> On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
> > There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
> > solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
> > interfaces managed by networkd
Quoting Sirius (2024-09-22 17:22:21)
> On fre, 2024/09/20 at 13:12:36 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> [snip]
> > # Proposal
> > My proposal is to enable a hybrid network stack, using systemd-networkd (on
> > server/cloud/container/embedded systems) and NetworkManager (on
> > desktop/laptop
> > syste
> On 22 Sep 2024, at 14:47, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
>
> As far as I understood Lukas' mail, then at least currently not, as
> NM in Debian doesn't come with patches to support two-way
> configuration with netplan.
I think this is a very serious regression for desktop systems. Debian started
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 8:06 PM CEST, Josh Triplett wrote:
There's one other desirable feature that would make this a robust
solution: having NetworkManager do something to handle or ignore
interfaces managed by networkd.
If I'm interpreting correctly what you mean, this should already be
poss
Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 at 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and
> > NetworkManager.
>
> d-i *already* makes a choice between ifupdown and NetworkManager: if
> NM has been pulled in by a task's dependencies (e.g. th
On fre, 2024/09/20 at 13:12:36 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
[snip]
> # Proposal
> My proposal is to enable a hybrid network stack, using systemd-networkd (on
> server/cloud/container/embedded systems) and NetworkManager (on desktop/laptop
> systems) unified through a common layer of Netplan configur
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 03:45:30PM +0100, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 12:47 PM BST, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > TBH the "interfaces nicely with the clickable frontends" part is
> > what I meant here. I don't know if anyone likes nm-cli.
>
> I prefer it to `ip`, when I can ge
On Sun Sep 22, 2024 at 12:47 PM BST, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> TBH the "interfaces nicely with the clickable frontends" part is
> what I meant here. I don't know if anyone likes nm-cli.
I prefer it to `ip`, when I can get away with using it instead.
--
Please do not CC me for listmail.
👱🏻
Hi,
On Fri, 2024-09-20 at 13:12 +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a
> feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer
> to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more reasons
> acros
* Marc Haber [240922 13:08]:
> On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
> wrote:
> >The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd,
> >but they also want the configuration interface of networkd.
>
> Ack. I'd love networkd to have some more robustness features, but
> net
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
>The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd,
>but they also want the configuration interface of networkd.
Ack. I'd love networkd to have some more robustness features, but
netplan doesnt add anything here.
>The "laptop
On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 at 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and
> NetworkManager.
d-i *already* makes a choice between ifupdown and NetworkManager: if
NM has been pulled in by a task's dependencies (e.g. this happens when
you install the G
uch, that they both would *need*
the same interface? The opposite seems to apply.
> PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most
> actionable option that we have on the table and strikes a good compromise. As
> a
> replacement for ifu
On 2024-09-20 06:49, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Sep 20, Lukas Märdian wrote:
PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's
the most
Actually I cannot thing of your proposal having much support from
anybody else.
At this point I am starting to find annoying how hard you alone
On Sep 20, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most
Actually I cannot thing of your proposal having much support from
anybody else.
At this point I am starting to find annoying how hard you alone are
trying to push Netplan on Debian.
>
er time, after Trixie is released.
Thanks for considering my proposal.
Cheers,
Lukas
PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most
actionable option that we have on the table and strikes a good compromise. As a
replacement for ifupdown is overdue, we shou
Lukas Märdian writes:
> On 04.09.24 17:26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
>> Do we even have general documentation about configuring networking?
>
> Yes, there is a "NetworkConfiguration" page on the wiki and the Debian ref:
>
> * https://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration
I dont thinj this page is usefu
Hi all,
Sorry for the delayed answer. I've been busy at many fronts.
And thanks so much to Lukas for friendly taking care of this topic.
El 21/08/24 a las 10:30, Lukas Märdian escribió:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On 20.08.24 16:25, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > Hi Lukas,
> > CCing d-devel,
>
> This email was
Dear Lukas and All,
From my perspective, Netplan is a great add-on for homogenizing network
management in the cloud, which requires simple to semi-complicated network
needs, especially with heterogenous OS fleets. However, for many ways, Netplan
is not a great default to begin with, since it’s
On Thu, 5 Sep 2024 14:48:49 +0200, Lukas Märdian
wrote:
>But for the
>release where we switch our network stack, we should definitely keep it
>around, to give sysadmins some time to adopt to the new recommended tooling.
Or to keep the old tooling, yes. Te default is a default for new
installs. As
On 04.09.24 21:41, Daniel Baumann wrote:
sorry, one more..
On 9/4/24 18:00, Lukas Märdian wrote:
But we ought to look at the bigger picture!
From that point of view, it doesn't make sense to even consider netplan.
No distribution other than ubuntu is using it.
If Debian uses network-manage
On 05.09.24 11:36, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 9/5/24 10:43, Marc Haber wrote:
I don't see a problem with keeping ifupdown{2,-ng,} if none of those
packages is part of the default install and we remove it from the
beginner- and intermediate-level docs.
right, me neither; but Lukas' argument was t
On 9/5/24 10:43, Marc Haber wrote:
> I don't see a problem with keeping ifupdown{2,-ng,} if none of those
> packages is part of the default install and we remove it from the
> beginner- and intermediate-level docs.
right, me neither; but Lukas' argument was that introducing netplan is
"unifying do
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 21:29:58 +0200, Daniel Baumann
wrote:
>"wild idea": how about just removing ifupdown/ifupdown2/ifupdown-ng and
>decluttering/improving documentation instead then?
I don't see a problem with keeping ifupdown{2,-ng,} if none of those
packages is part of the default install and we
sorry, one more..
On 9/4/24 18:00, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> But we ought to look at the bigger picture!
>From that point of view, it doesn't make sense to even consider netplan.
No distribution other than ubuntu is using it.
If Debian uses network-manager and systemd-networkd, there's hardly any
d
On 9/4/24 18:00, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> Of course we could. But who would actually care?
>
> That's exactly the problem!
I don't think so. I still have the impression that netplan wants to fill
a whole where in reality there's none.
In my experience networking from a systems point of view has d
On 2024-09-04 08:03, Lukas Märdian wrote:
Hi all!
On 04.09.24 15:46, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:27:45 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
* Marco d'Itri [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 ins
On 9/4/24 17:49, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> Netplan is for the average user who googles about "how to configure network
> on debian" and ends up with the "4 ways to configure the network"
> [4ways] or
> even more options in the Debian Reference [debref]:
so, to exaggerate on purpose, netplan is only t
Lukas Märdian writes:
> But in the end we don't want to bloat our base-installation with
> NetworkManager and systemd-networkd is not fit to cover the desktop/laptop
> usecase. So why not put some glue around it, to make it all feel coherent,
> without limiting anybody in their decision to choose
On 04.09.24 17:26, Marco d'Itri wrote:
With Netplan we could provide coherent network configuration across all
variants of Debian (server, cloud, laptop, ...), while choosing the best
underlying stack for the usecase (i.e. systemd-networkd on server/cloud
and NetworkManager on desktop/laptop).
O
On 04.09.24 13:28, Daniel Baumann wrote:
On 9/3/24 18:24, Lukas Märdian wrote:
The nice thing about Netplan is that it [...] functions as a
layer on top.
I don't understand what actual problem netplan is trying to solve.
On servers I want systemd-networkd directly anyway (for lacp, vlan and
b
On Sep 04, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> With Netplan we could provide coherent network configuration across all
> variants of Debian (server, cloud, laptop, ...), while choosing the best
> underlying stack for the usecase (i.e. systemd-networkd on server/cloud
> and NetworkManager on desktop/laptop).
O
Hi all!
On 04.09.24 15:46, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:27:45 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
* Marco d'Itri [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 abstrac
Quoting Marc Haber (2024-09-04 15:43:15)
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:28:30 +0200, Daniel Baumann
> wrote:
> >On 9/3/24 18:24, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> >> The nice thing about Netplan is that it [...] functions as a
> >> layer on top.
> >
> >I don't understand what actual problem netplan is trying to sol
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 11:27:45 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
>* Marco d'Itri [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 no
On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 13:28:30 +0200, Daniel Baumann
wrote:
>On 9/3/24 18:24, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> The nice thing about Netplan is that it [...] functions as a
>> layer on top.
>
>I don't understand what actual problem netplan is trying to solve.
I am also missing that piece of information. At th
Hi,
On 9/3/24 18:24, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> The nice thing about Netplan is that it [...] functions as a
> layer on top.
I don't understand what actual problem netplan is trying to solve.
On servers I want systemd-networkd directly anyway (for lacp, vlan and
bridges), and on end-user desktops I'
* Marco d'Itri [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 o
ہر ایک کے مقابلے میں زیادہ سے زیادہ is the link to my website and I am not
going through a rough time in the process of the bottom line of business
plan and the office that you are working on myself with you and I will
also need you to do and I'm I'd be a good good and would love to have the
chanc
If the proposed implementation (with netplan) would work as you described
Lukas, I'd have absolutely no objections. Seems like a wonderful idea !
Best,
Alex
On 03.09.24 16:13, Alexandru Mihail wrote:
Hi, I second Hakan's thoughts and reasons for using NetworkManager
going forward, as opposed to netplan. I work in a company which ships
boat loads of network devices (think industrial routers, GSM gear,
factory equipment) running a wide variety of Linux
On 9/2/24 21:02, Andrej Shadura wrote:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, at 19:41, Daniel Gröber wrote:
I promise you I'm not intentionally, but I do recognize that it may be a
side-effect. Likewise I feel like you're just interested in pushing this
through as quickly as possible.
Consider that for you time
Hi, I second Hakan's thoughts and reasons for using NetworkManager
going forward, as opposed to netplan. I work in a company which ships
boat loads of network devices (think industrial routers, GSM gear,
factory equipment) running a wide variety of Linux from Ubuntu, RHEL,
Debian, etc. The way Netw
Dear Daniel, and all,
> On 2 Sep 2024, at 22:56, Daniel Gröber wrote:
>
> Hi Andrej,
>
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 09:02:43PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
>> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, at 19:41, Daniel Gröber wrote:
>>> You're continuing to confirm my pre-existing view that netplan infantilizes
>>> it's
On 8/20/24 16:25, Daniel Gröber wrote:
Frankly I think the problem we have here is that this shouldn't be a
technical decision. We should focus on what the majority of our users
actually want not our preferences.
I strongly do not agree with the above. This is not a question of who
likes what,
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
Hi Andrej,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 09:02:43PM +0200, Andrej Shadura wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, at 19:41, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > You're continuing to confirm my pre-existing view that netplan infantilizes
> > it's users as you're applying the same thinking to the entire Debian
> > community her
Daniel,
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024, at 19:41, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:19:20PM +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
>> Surveying the wrong set of people will lead to unusable data. Henry Ford
>> summarized this nicely some 100 years ago, when asked about customer input
>> in
Hi Lukas,
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 12:19:20PM +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> Surveying the wrong set of people will lead to unusable data. Henry Ford
> summarized this nicely some 100 years ago, when asked about customer input
> in the development of the Ford Model T automobile: "If I had asked peop
Hi Lukas,
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 10:30:46AM +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote:
> This email was intended to first gauge opinions from networking maintainers,
> before pushing it out to debian-devel@l.d.o.. All the points still hold and
> are fine to be public. But let me at least add the preamble and re
Hi Daniel,
On 20.08.24 16:25, Daniel Gröber wrote:
Hi Lukas,
CCing d-devel,
This email was intended to first gauge opinions from networking maintainers,
before pushing it out to debian-devel@l.d.o.. All the points still hold and
are fine to be public. But let me at least add the preamble and r
Hi Lukas,
CCing d-devel,
tl;dr: I'm sorry to say I strongly oppose both removing ifupdown* in forky
as well as raising netplan to Priority: standard. To move this forward
without conflict I think we should base the default networking tool
decision on data not developer opinion.
On Tue, Aug 20, 20
88 matches
Mail list logo
