Re: Network stack for Trixie

2024-09-08 Thread Santiago Ruano Rincón
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

Re: Re: Network stack for Trixie

2024-09-04 Thread Madad AliRaja
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

Re: Network stack for Trixie

2024-09-03 Thread Thomas Goirand
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,

Re: Network stack for Trixie

2024-08-21 Thread Lukas Märdian
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

Re: Network stack for Trixie

2024-08-20 Thread Daniel Gröber
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