Hi Martin, On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:25:02PM +0300, Martin-Éric Racine wrote: > > > I just had a look at ifupdown-ng. The /etc/network/interface syntax > > > is not a drop-in replacement for ifupdown. That's a big no-no. Those > > > "use dhcp" have to go. > > > > Not reading the documentation carefully is a bigger no-no :) > > > > For legacy configurations statements "use" is optional: > > > > > If the auto_executor_selection ifupdown-ng.conf option is > > > enabled, use statements will automatically be added for > > > executors when their config‐ uration statements are present in > > > the interfaces file. > > Which is not a drop-in substitute. It depends upon a configuratiomn option.
Which of course defaults to enabled in order to be compatible. Users may choose to opt-in to the more declarative "use" stanzas if they wish and I'd expect any new upstream executors like vrf will need them (haven't tried) but not traditional stanzas or if-*.d based extensions. I wish ifupdown-ng upstream hadn't chosen to introduce an additional set of global config options in /etc/network/ifupdown-ng.conf and I am still mulling getting rid of that somehow but so far I don't see a real problem there. > > Please note that the examples in the manpages are in what upstream > > considers the "proper new way" of doing things, they don't show the legacy > > way (also a good thing), you may have to read the code to get the full > > picture. Do let me know if any legacy-format behavioural > > reference-documentation is missing though. > > Claiming to offer a drop-in substitute all while nudging people > towards a new paradigm is not welcome. If ifupdown's paradigm were working for people we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm honestly not sure what the problem is? IMO ifupdown has a good basic approach but some of the details of it's design are ... questionable by todays standards. How else would you move /etc/network/interfaces forward without breaking anything? > > Since I only just realised people may now actually want to try out > > ifupdown-ng: You can co-install it with traditional ifupdown with > > --no-install-recommends, the ifupdown-ng-compat package is the one that > > conflicts: ifupdown. ifupdown-ng itself doesn't. > > > > Use ifup-ng/ifdown-ng, check dpkg -L for manpages some are named *-ng some > > aren't. Executors have their own interfaces-* manpage eg. > > interfaces-bridge(5). > > Which again shows that this is not a drop-in substitute. Have you actually looked at the packaging? There are symlinks in the ifupdown-ng-compat package to put things in the right places, but in order to test that the two implementations actually behave the same it is exceedingly convinient to have them co-installable. We can all have bad days, so don't take this as an attack on your character, but if this discussion is representative of the level of care you put into your Debian work I'm not sure we're a good fit for co-maintance, however I invite you to prove me wrong. --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
