El 10/07/23 a las 14:52, Helmut Grohne escribió: > On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 05:58:07PM +0100, Luca Boccassi wrote: > > On top of that, a minimal installation chroot doesn't need a > > fully-featured dhcp client. As Simon said already, busybox is there > > for any reason for a minimal one. For the rest - installer and whatnot > > - the installer and tasklets should pull in the required stack as > > needed. > > I contend that currently a debootstrap includes a dhcp client and this > is more of a migration from one dhcp implementation to another. Since > dhcp is the most common way of configuring a network, supporting it in > ifupdown by default also seems like a reasonable choice. > > > So I think not only we should not bump the priority of dhcpd-base, but > > we should also change ifupdown's down to optional.
I would like to just echo this: > > I don't quite see consensus on this yet, but I already see significant > interest in changing the default network configuration method. I hope > that it is out of question that we'd demote the priority of the > recommended dhcp client when demoting the priority of ifupdown. Demotion > of ifupdown needs to come with a proposed replacement and/or with > changes to the debian-installer. I do hope that we can get that > discussion going and implemented before trixie. However, this is about > changing the default dhcp client for use with debootstrap and moving the > priority from one package to another seems like an incremental > improvement that is not blocking the bigger goal of changing the default > network configuration tool in any way. > > I expect that dhcpcd will not be important in trixie, but for now that > move makes sense to me, because it is as easily reverted as it is > implemented. This is an instance of "The perfect is the enemy of the > good." [snip] Could we just give a shorter step right now to make things move forward, and let the discussion about the default network interfaces configuration tool for later? Thanks, -- S
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature