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, 2024 at 12:58:28PM +0200, Lukas Märdian wrote: > So I want to find a compromise involving all interested parties. If there are > no strong objections, I'd like to move forward with a proposal (and change in > priorities via ftpmasters) that is structured as follows: > > * Keep ifupdown[-ng] installed (Priority: important) as a fallback and for > existing installations > - Replacing ifupdown with ifupdown-ng, if reaching a drop-in compatible > state is feasible in time for Trixie (@Daniel, what's you stance on this?) If we can find enough testers, yes. The implementation work still to be done is small enough. > - bluca is requesting ifupdown[-ng] to be dropped from the default > installation for Forky, which is sensible, IMO. But we also want to keep > it around for a transitioning period (in Trixie), so that people relying > on specific if-up/down.d hooks are covered and have plenty of time to > migrate to new tooling NACK. I'm not going to do the work to get ifupdown-ng into shape for being the default just to have it removed again that's a ridiculous ask. That being said I realise that without Santiago's support as ifupdown maintainer I don't have much of a procedural leg to stand on in opposing this. > * Keep sd-networkd installed (as part of the systemd package), becoming the > recommended network config tool for minimal installations > - In debootstrap/chroots and also in minimal D-I installations (without > "standard utilities"),after the [networkd enablement] MR is landed NACK. I have a counter proposabl for this but let's focus the discussion the the idea below first. > I'd like to avoid drama and calling the CTTE to make a decision on our behalf, but > rather find a compromise between us networking maintainers. So please let me know > if this would work for you or if you have any alternative proposal(s). 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 propose taking an informal vote on this to gather data on networking tool preference among DDs and the wider Debian community to settle this. @d-devel has this been done on decisions like these beore? How should we go about doing this? Would a GR be more appropriate? If it turns out I'm alone in wanting Debian to retain it's identity as Debian I will (grudingly) step aside on this matter, but in the absence of tangible data my current view is that this is not the case and I will take appropriate steps to protect that identity. Thanks, --Daniel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature