ti 11.11.2025 klo 13.39 Daniel Gröber ([email protected]) kirjoitti: > > 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.
There was no agreement on the mailing list. The BoF wasn't accessible to many interested parties. > > > > 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 3) bridge-utils is buggy and no longer maintained upstream.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 has widely different behaviors depending on whether the bridge is started via allow-hotplug or via auto. 2) The aforementioned inconsistency with LL6 has long remained unsolved. > > 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? 1) It was requested ages ago, back when it became clear that bridge-utils was deprecated, and has remained unanswered since then. Just look at the thread. 2) We need something that works in a predictable and consitent way now. 3) ifupdown-ng has changed some of the configuration syntax, so it cannot replace ifupdown. Martin-Éric
