On 8/20/24 16:25, Daniel Gröber wrote:
Frankly I think the problem we have here is that this shouldn't be a technical decision. We should focus on what the majority of our users actually want not our preferences.
I strongly do not agree with the above. This is not a question of who likes what, it's a question of what we can, and should support. At this time, ifupdown as a concept, is just dead. Systemd raises events, and we must have the logic to implement it.
This is one of the reason why the cloud image switched to netplan and systemd-networkd: it needed to respond to PCI hotplug events, and perform DHCP on a new NIC hotplug. With ifupdown, the way to do it, is to write udev rules. These more and more, are a bad concept that is being actively removed from systemd. For example, in Bookworm, you cannot rename a NIC using an udev rule, you must use a file under /etc/systemd/network. So we're already in, like it or not... It is also super hackish style of scripts with ifupdown.
At this time, ifupdown isn't a good fit for the job, and I don't see anyone volunteering to change the situation. The ifupdown path is just reaching a dead end. If you find volunteers, we may reconsider.
And then, you're saying it is a question of taste, and we should vote? I do not agree. This isn't the case. Please don't go that path of making people vote on something they may not know about, and will have no time to investigate or read about: this is just wrong. Instead, either get ifupdown actively maintained and fixed for newer systemd (and then come back to us), or give-up the idea, so we can switch to a more modern, systemd-compatible stack.
I propose taking an informal vote on this to gather data on networking tool preference among DDs and the wider Debian community to settle this.
Please don't. We do not need another systemd vote...
@d-devel has this been done on decisions like these beore? How should we go about doing this? Would a GR be more appropriate?
No, it would not. We haven't even finished discussing it internally in this team, yet even raised a topic in debian-project. Please do not just fire a GR so fast, we should discuss it calmly first. Did you also think that maybe, the technical committee could be involved, if we can't agree reasonably, rather than yet-another-GR ? We aren't even there yet...
If it turns out I'm alone in wanting Debian to retain it's identity as Debian I will (grudingly) step aside on this matter, but in the absence of tangible data my current view is that this is not the case and I will take appropriate steps to protect that identity.
This sounds like a threat, rather than getting involved in the decision making process. Can't we have a normal (technical) discussion instead?
Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
