On Sun, 22 Sep 2024 12:22:50 +0200, Chris Hofstaedtler <z...@debian.org> wrote: >The "server" group supposedly wants (and I agree) networkd, >but they also want the configuration interface of networkd.
Ack. I'd love networkd to have some more robustness features, but netplan doesnt add anything here. >The "laptop" group supposedly wants (and I agree) NetworkManager, >but they also want the configuration interface of NetworkManager. nack. I truly despise the configuration interface of NetworkManager, and I have never fully understood it. I still have NetworkManager on my notebooks because it interfaces nicely with the clickable frontends in the desktop environment. Will I continue to have that luxury if we have netplan above n-m? Another case are setups where some software expects to be able to configure the network, with docker and libvirt being the most obvious cases. libvirt comes with its own lay of indirection which has never gotten enough traction to go beyond very basic support of ifupdown. I don't know how this works, for example, on Ubuntu or Fedora. >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. I am all for d-i pre-choosing sane defaults for workstation/notebook setups. The server people are likely to use the expert install, have preseeded installs or their completely own installation methods. Greetings Marc -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Rhein-Neckar, DE | Beginning of Wisdom " | Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402
