On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 09:13:46AM +0200, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > I don't expect this will happen in traditional ifupdown. > > Why not?
Moving to ifupdown-ng is the strategy that was agreed upon among the people doing the work. Please refer back to https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2024/07/msg00098.html#:~:text=ifupdown-ng for (some) reasoning and the DC25 Networking BoF for some more discussion https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2025/DebConf25/debconf25-124-networking-bof.vp8.webm. > > > remains a highly desirable goal. > > > > I don't see the pressing need, can you explain the motivation? I don't > > personally use bridges very much. > > 3) bridge-utils is buggy and no longer maintained upstream. I'm not aware of any high-priority issues with bridge-utils. Could you be more specific? > 1) It's long been requested. > 2) It's needed to group several PHY under one interface. It's pretty much > a must for routers. I do understand the basic bridge use-case. What I don't see is why replacing bridge-utils (brctl) should be of such priority that we need to do it *right now* in ifupdown rather than just wait until it's replaced by -ng? --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
