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 > different implementations of the same.
Is that discussion public? What's the reasoning of that conclusion? Frankly I don't think we should be having this/these discussions in private. So I'm CC'ing d-devel for lack of a better suited ML. > This e-mail is meant to launch discussion over which of the 3 > implementations would be the best candidate for this. 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 it so I never questioned it but I'm happy to hear why we should all rally around it. 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 system doing it. Full compatibility is not there yet. I'm working on it, see [1] but I'm optimistic so far. [1]: https://github.com/ifupdown-ng/ifupdown-ng/issues/247 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 community building was probably never the goal. Admittedly I didn't look very hard, this is just my impression currently. I'm sure it has it's niche thought and that brings my back to my initial concern: why exactly does it make sense to converge on a single implementation at this point? Cause I don't see it. DHCP on the other hand affects us all. I'd be very much on board with pooling resources around that. --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
