* Lukas Märdian <sl...@debian.org> [240920 13:13]: > I've repeated the reasons why I think a hybrid stack using Netplan is a > feasible solution many times in previous threads, therefore I'd like to refer > to a list of frequently asked questions, instead of spreading more reasons > across more replies: https://wiki.debian.org/Netplan/FAQ > > # Why > The ifupdown package is a Debian only solution that is becoming a maintenance > burden. We've had plenty of discussions over the years and consensus is that > we > want to get rid of it. > Some variations of Debian have already moved forward with choosing a different > stack, such as desktop/laptop installations (using NetworkManager) and cloud > images (using Netplan+systemd-networkd). Also, ifupdown-ng exists as a modern > re-implementation of the classic tooling, that strives to become drop-in > [compatible].
Thanks for providing the FAQ and this "Why" section, but it seems to leave open why we would want or need netplan as the default. As the FAQ shows, netplan is available as an optional package in many distros. The same is already true in Debian thanks to you. For your described usecase groups, which seem to clearly map to the backends used by netplan, I do not see what netplan brings to the table. The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd, but they also want the configuration interface of networkd. The "laptop" group supposedly wants (and I agree) NetworkManager, but they also want the configuration interface of NetworkManager. Who actually wants the configuration interface of netplan, especially by default? I see nobody saying "yet another layer is a lot of fun!", and the usecase groups do not overlap that much, that they both would *need* the same interface? The opposite seems to apply. > PS: I know this proposal doesn't please everybody, but I think it's the most > actionable option that we have on the table and strikes a good compromise. As > a > replacement for ifupdown is overdue, we should adopt our network stack for > Trixie. d-i could make (or offer) a choice between networkd and NetworkManager. Doesn't have to be netplan. I can vaguely see how d-i might be simpler by writing netplan config, but it still has to make a choice of the default backend? And then what does netplan help here? Given d-i then will have to make a choice, *none* of the networking stack packages should have a "Priority:" higher than optional. As in, even if we would go with netplan in d-i, there is no "default" anymore and people have to make choices. Best, Chris
