Hi Martin,
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 06:28:36PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> la 14. syysk. 2024 klo 15.30 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> > 2) I'm worried about the behavioural change regarding inet/inet6 stanzas
> > outlined in #1065085 with a patch by ktetzlaff pending.
On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 09:49:24AM +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 2024-09-15 at 23:07 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:13:26PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this
> conversation.
> How else would you m
* Michael Stone [240916 05:04]:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:57:39AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
> >default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
> >
> > Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at le
Hi,
On Sun, 2024-09-15 at 23:07 -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:13:26PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this
> > conversation.
> > How else would you move /etc/network/interfaces forward without breaking
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:13:26PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this
conversation.
Well, the problem is that there's a selection bias in people having this
conversation--the people who are using ifupdown without issues aren't
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 10:57:39AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least for new
installations?
Frankly the default
Hello,
I've gone ahead with the override switch.
I think it is appropriate to use an override change to try to get some
momentum behind this transition. And we are at a point in the release
cycle where it is not a big deal to switch it back if it turns out there
is unsolveable breakage.
(by the
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024, at 09:30, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> 3) dhcpcd-base enables IPv6 privacy addressess by default.
Please never do this *by silent default* when DHCPv6 is being used for stateful
address assignment, privacy addresses are a big issue on non-home networks and
even on home networks
I haven't been following the rest of this discussion, but one small
point since this is a common source of confusion:
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 02:30:08PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> Lastly I don't quite understand how the ftp-master priority override
> mechanism plays into this and indeed why we'
Hi Martin,
On Sat, Sep 14, 2024 at 08:31:06AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> Let's start with changing the ifupdown dependencies and DHCP stack
> search order to effectively deprecate ISC.
I don't think we're ready yet. I have some concerns:
1) How do you deal with the mismatch between dhcp
la 14. syysk. 2024 klo 1.17 Santiago Ruano Rincón
(santiag...@riseup.net) kirjoitti:
>
> Adding team+network...@tracker.debian.org to the loop.
>
> El 13/09/24 a las 12:31, Martin-Éric Racine escribió:
> > pe 13. syysk. 2024 klo 12.16 Sean Whitton (spwhit...@spwhitton.name)
> > kirjoitti:
> > > He
Adding team+network...@tracker.debian.org to the loop.
El 13/09/24 a las 12:31, Martin-Éric Racine escribió:
> pe 13. syysk. 2024 klo 12.16 Sean Whitton (spwhit...@spwhitton.name)
> kirjoitti:
> > Hello Santiago,
> >
> > What are your current intentions in this area? Do you want to make the
> >
pe 13. syysk. 2024 klo 12.16 Sean Whitton (spwhit...@spwhitton.name) kirjoitti:
> Hello Santiago,
>
> What are your current intentions in this area? Do you want to make the
> change for trixie? If not, I'd like to close the override change bug
> for now. Thanks.
I am wondering the same. However
Hello Santiago,
What are your current intentions in this area? Do you want to make the
change for trixie? If not, I'd like to close the override change bug
for now. Thanks.
--
Sean Whitton
Hello,
On Sun, 14 Jul 2024, at 11:21, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
>> > > Not quite true, vlan support is now internal AFAIK, or at least I haven't
>> > > installed `vlan` in ages and things seem to work :)
>> >
>> > I said ifupdown, not ifupdown-ng.
>>
>> I was talking about *ifupdown*. Sorry for no
su 14. heinäk. 2024 klo 12.21 Martin-Éric Racine
(martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi) kirjoitti:
> Similarly, I have yet to hear any compelling reason for dropping all
> DHCP clients and ifupdown implementations from the default install and
> instead using networkd or for using netplan instead of ifupdown.
Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> la 13. heinäk. 2024 klo 2.02 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> > On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:57:52PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > What I'd like to know is why is removing all traces of ifupdown* from a
> > minimal Debian install important? Clearly De
la 13. heinäk. 2024 klo 2.02 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:57:52PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> What I'd like to know is why is removing all traces of ifupdown* from a
> minimal Debian install important? Clearly Desktop/Cloud image maintainers
> th
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 18:02, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 16:21:16 +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 22:44 +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> > > I believe NM does not have a fixed configuration format, but only a dbus
> > > API.
> >
> > It's perfectly fine to edit co
Hi Martin, Marc, and Santiago,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 12:57:52PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > I mean looking at the other half of this thread, clearly the ifupdown*
> > paradigm isn't working at all for some people which I think is
> > unfortunate.
>
> I haven't see anyone answer the que
ur community users and customers.
Julien.
From: Santiago Ruano Rincón
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 2:08 PM
To: Daniel Gröber
Cc: Martin-Éric Racine; debian-devel@lists.debian.org;
ifupd...@packages.debian.org; ifupdo...@packages.debian.org;
ifupdown...@packages.debian.org
Subject: Re: i
Hi,
On Thu, 11 Jul 2024, at 08:41, Simon Richter wrote:
>> I understand your fears about the uncertainty of future developments.
>
> No, you don't.
>
> What I'm concerned about is not packages as a whole being discontinued.
> This is highly unlikely for systemd, and for simpler packages, it is no
Jumping in in the middle of the conversation, but couldn't resist
On 11/7/24 10:23, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
Claiming to offer a drop-in substitute all while nudging people
towards a new paradigm is not welcome.
If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this
con
On 11/7/24 8:16, Marc Haber wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:15:24 +0200, Ansgar ? wrote:
While there are numerous alternative implementations of DHCP client,
the Linux world seems to be without a working DHCP relay
implementation in those days. That's REALLY bad for an installation
with Linux rout
On 10.07.24 22:14, Simon Richter wrote:
It is supported *now*, but the roadmap is unclear -- that support
could be discontinued at any moment, and it would not be the first
time a feature Debian relied on was removed.
I don't think that the systemd people have *any* intention to
substantiall
El 09/07/24 a las 11:45, Simon McVittie escribió:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
> > default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
> >
> > Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do th
El 09/07/24 a las 11:25, Daniel Gröber escribió:
> Hi Santiago,
>
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:23:16PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > > > Santiago, how do you feel about ifupdown's future maintainability and
> > > > feature development? I honestly never looked into why people started
> >
to 11. heinäk. 2024 klo 12.34 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 11:23:38AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > > Claiming to offer a drop-in substitute all while nudging people
> > > > towards a new paradigm is not welcome.
> > >
> > > If ifupdown's paradigm
Am Di, Jul 09, 2024 at 20:03:52 +0200 schrieb Matthias Urlichs:
Well, I've been apt-purging ifupdown for almost a decade by now and
didn't yet miss any of it.
I would never purge ifupdown. I like the nice configuration in one file
that you can find no matter if it is an old or new Debian insta
Hi Vincent, Martin,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2024 at 07:54:50AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > From where I'm sitting ifupdown2 is completely out of the question as *the*
> > Debian ifupdown since it doesn't even support *basic* IPv6 use-cases like
> > DHCPv6. Upstream community seems nonexistant since
On Jul 10, Simon Richter wrote:
> It is supported *now*, but the roadmap is unclear -- that support could be
> discontinued at any moment, and it would not be the first time a feature
> Debian relied on was removed.
You have manufactured a non-existing issue and then decided to get
anxious about
On Jul 11, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> This is quite unfair. Cumulus tried very hard to make ifupdown2 a community
> projects, with notably a presentation at Debconf 14 and Debconf 16. One of
> its killer feature is the ability to go from the running state to the target
> state with one command (ifre
ti 9. heinäk. 2024 klo 15.13 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> Users may choose to opt-in to the more declarative "use" stanzas if they
> wish and I'd expect any new upstream executors like vrf will need them
> (haven't tried) but not traditional stanzas or if-*.d based extensions.
>
Hi Ansgar,
On 7/11/24 06:15, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
It is supported *now*, but the roadmap is unclear -- that support could
be discontinued at any moment, and it would not be the first time a
feature Debian relied on was removed.
I understand your fears about the uncertainty of future developments.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:15:24 +0200, Ansgar ? wrote:
>On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 05:14 +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
>> It is supported *now*, but the roadmap is unclear -- that support could
>> be discontinued at any moment, and it would not be the first time a
>> feature Debian relied on was removed.
On Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:36:19 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz
wrote:
>yes please, I would love to see Debian switch from ifupdown to
>NM/networkd. ifupdown was the perfect tool for the time it was created
>in, but things have advanced, and imho now is a good time to switch.
I agree. Nothing has yet reached t
On 2024-07-07 15:56, Daniel Gröber wrote:
From where I'm sitting ifupdown2 is completely out of the question as *the*
Debian ifupdown since it doesn't even support *basic* IPv6 use-cases like
DHCPv6. Upstream community seems nonexistant since this is software by a
corp for a corp where communit
On 7/9/24 13:31, Simon McVittie wrote:
I would tend to count "execute arbitrary user-supplied code on
networking changes" as a specialized requirement - by definition,
for this to happen, someone (the sysadmin) needs to have written and
installed the user-supplied hook script. If the sysadmin has
Hi Simon,
On Thu, 2024-07-11 at 05:14 +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> It is supported *now*, but the roadmap is unclear -- that support could
> be discontinued at any moment, and it would not be the first time a
> feature Debian relied on was removed.
I understand your fears about the uncertainty
Hi,
On 7/10/24 05:36, Marco d'Itri wrote:
That's my question, essentially: is this an interface with full support from
upstream, or something that may change in an incompatible way later that
will require us to deploy additional infrastructure to support?
Multiple people, one of the systemd
On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 11:45 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch
> > the
> > default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
> >
> > Well, here's a heretical thought: why don
On Jul 09, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Just tried to point out that automatic conversion will be hard. And
And I believe that nobody argued to do that.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Jul 09, Simon Richter wrote:
> For a server installation, I absolutely need the option to configure a
> static IP from d-i text mode interface or a preseed file, and this
> configuration to be taken over into the installed system.
I do not understand why you are explaining this as if it were s
Matthias Urlichs writes:
> On 09.07.24 12:27, Bjørn Mork wrote:
>> Run user scripts on up/down events. That's a huge blank spot in
>> systemd-networkd. And by design, so it's really not fixable.
>
> Well, I've been apt-purging ifupdown for almost a decade by now and
> didn't yet miss any of it.
Hi,
On 7/9/24 23:01, Luca Boccassi wrote:
As per smcv's point, if you need to manually write a static
configuration then you can also install your favourite tool to use it.
This is not the default case - the default case is "I have ethernet
and/or wifi and I want DHCP v4+v6 on anything that can
On 09.07.24 12:27, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Run user scripts on up/down events. That's a huge blank spot in
systemd-networkd. And by design, so it's really not fixable.
Well, I've been apt-purging ifupdown for almost a decade by now and
didn't yet miss any of it.
You can think whether that scrip
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 16:21:16 +0200, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:
> On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 22:44 +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> > I believe NM does not have a fixed configuration format, but only a dbus
> > API.
>
> It's perfectly fine to edit configuration files for NM manually, see
> man:nm-settings-keyfile
Hi Simon,
On Tue, 2024-07-09 at 22:44 +0900, Simon Richter wrote:
> I believe NM does not have a fixed configuration format, but only a dbus
> API.
It's perfectly fine to edit configuration files for NM manually, see
man:nm-settings-keyfile(5).
> Our best bet there would be a firstboot unit,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 14:44, Simon Richter wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 7/9/24 17:57, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> >> Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
> >> default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
>
> > Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at leas
Hi,
On 7/9/24 17:57, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least
for new installations?
Both are overly complex for a static-IP-onl
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:25:02PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > I just had a look at ifupdown-ng. The /etc/network/interface syntax
> > > is not a drop-in replacement for ifupdown. That's a big no-no. Those
> > > "use dhcp" have to go.
> >
> > Not reading the documentation ca
ti 9. heinäk. 2024 klo 11.58 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:26:50AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > su 7. heinäk. 2024 klo 16.56 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> > > For me the reason to work on ifupdown-ng is that it has a better core
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 12:27:58 +0200, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Matthias Urlichs writes:
> > Somebody could even write a converter. Shouldn't be that difficult,
> > AFAIK there's nothing ifupdown can do that systemd[-networkd] can't.
>
> Run user scripts on up/down events. That's a huge blank spot in
Matthias Urlichs writes:
>> Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
>> default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
>
> Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at
> least for new installations?
>
> Somebody could even write a converter. Shouldn't be th
On Tue, 09 Jul 2024 at 10:57:39 +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
> default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
>
> Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least for
> new
> installations?
To some ext
Hello,
Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
default to NM and/or systemd-networkd.
Well, here's a heretical thought: why don't we do that anyway, at least
for new installations?
Somebody could even write a converter. Shouldn't be that difficult,
AFAIK there's
Hi Santiago,
On Mon, Jul 08, 2024 at 12:23:16PM -0300, Santiago Ruano Rincón wrote:
> > > Santiago, how do you feel about ifupdown's future maintainability and
> > > feature development? I honestly never looked into why people started
> > > writing ifupdown replacements. I had my own gripes with i
Hi Martin,
On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:26:50AM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> su 7. heinäk. 2024 klo 16.56 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> > For me the reason to work on ifupdown-ng is that it has a better core
> > design, clean&modern code, an active upstream community, a ***te
On Jul 09, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> I just had a look at ifupdown-ng. The /etc/network/interface syntax
> is not a drop-in replacement for ifupdown. That's a big no-no. Those
> "use dhcp" have to go.
Agreed: either it's drop-in compatible or we may as well switch the
default to NM and/or sys
su 7. heinäk. 2024 klo 16.56 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> For me the reason to work on ifupdown-ng is that it has a better core
> design, clean&modern code, an active upstream community, a ***test suite***
> and the potential to fully replace ifupdown without breaking anyone's
>
ma 8. heinäk. 2024 klo 18.23 Santiago Ruano Rincón
(santiag...@riseup.net) kirjoitti:
> > dhcpcd covers both v4 and v6 transparently and also provides IPv6-PD.
> > The current plan is to swap ifupdown's default to prefer it to
> > dhclient and to swap Priority between dhclient and dhcpcd-base.
>
>
El 07/07/24 a las 18:02, Martin-Éric Racine escribió:
> su 7. heinäk. 2024 klo 16.56 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> > On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 12:38:34PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > > While discussing pending issues with Santiago (ifupdown's de-facto
> > > maintainer), we c
su 7. heinäk. 2024 klo 16.56 Daniel Gröber (d...@darkboxed.org) kirjoitti:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 12:38:34PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> > While discussing pending issues with Santiago (ifupdown's de-facto
> > maintainer), we came to the conclusion that team maintenance of just
> > one if
Hi Martin & all,
On Sun, Jul 07, 2024 at 12:38:34PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote:
> While discussing pending issues with Santiago (ifupdown's de-facto
> maintainer), we came to the conclusion that team maintenance of just
> one ifupdown implementation would be a better way to go than having 3
>
64 matches
Mail list logo
