Hi there, El 20/11/23 a las 19:44, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > (non-subscriber - please keep me in CC) > On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 4:26 PM Martin-Éric Racine > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 2:55 PM Martin-Éric Racine > > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 12:55 PM Martin-Éric Racine > > > <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 3:06 AM Santiago Ruano Rincón > > > > <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > El 22/06/23 a las 09:57, Santiago Ruano Rincón escribió: > > > > > > El 20/06/23 a las 08:29, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2023 at 9:11 PM Santiago Ruano Rincón > > > > > > > <santiag...@riseup.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > El 19/06/23 a las 13:54, Martin-Éric Racine escribió: > > > > > > > > > Greetings, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Seeing how the ISC DHCP suite has reached EOL upstream, now > > > > > > > > > might be a > > > > > > > > > good time to re-visit Debian's choice of standard DHCP client > > > > > > > > > shipping > > > > > > > > > with priority:important. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hereby propose bin:dhcpcd-base: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) already supported by ifupdown. > > > > > > > > > 2) dual stack (DHCPv4, Bonjour, RA, DHCPv6 with PD) with > > > > > > > > > privilege separation. > > > > > > > > > 3) writes both IPv4 and IPv6 name servers to /etc/resolv.conf > > > > > > > > > 4) supports /etc/resolv.conf.head and /etc/resolv.conf.tail > > > > > > > > > 5) a mere inet line in /etc/network/interfaces is sufficient > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > configure both stacks. > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that dhcpcd seems the best alternative to > > > > > > > > isc-dhcp-client for > > > > > > > > the moment, and I'll make the relevant changes in ifupdown as > > > > > > > > soon as I > > > > > > > > can. Josué, any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) As someone pointed out in the thread, the reason why > > > > > > > isc-dhcp-client had priority:important probably was to ensure that > > > > > > > debootstrap would pull it, since debootstrap ignores Recommends > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > packages with a priority lower than standard. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2) However, as long as ifupdown explictly depends on a package, > > > > > > > it can > > > > > > > also pull dependencies with a lower priority. Right now ifupdown > > > > > > > Recommends "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client" which debootstrap would > > > > > > > ignore. It would have to Depends "dhcpcd-base | dhcp-client" > > > > > > > instead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3) At that point, swapping the priority of isc-dhcp-client and > > > > > > > dhcpcd-base merely becomes "nice to have". Heck, the priority of > > > > > > > both > > > > > > > could, in principle, be optional, just as long as ifupdown > > > > > > > explicitly > > > > > > > Depends on a DHCP client, and the first alternative is a real > > > > > > > package. > > > > > > > > > > > > I was about to bump dhcpcd-base as ifupdown dependency, but... if > > > > > > isc-client-dhcp is a Recommends, is because not all users want a > > > > > > dhcp > > > > > > client installed, where all the ipv4 is handled statically, and > > > > > > ipv6 is > > > > > > done via SLAAC. As a user, I don't want/need to pull in dhcpcd-base > > > > > > the > > > > > > next upgrade. > > > > > > > > > > > > So I'd prefer to go forward with the steps proposed by Simon, and > > > > > > s/isc-dhcp-client/dhcpcd-base in ifupdown's Recommends: > > > > > > Unless there is a strong objection, I'll file the override bug > > > > > > report. > > > > > > > > > > (sorry for taking so long to come back to this) > > > > > > > > > > For the moment, ifupdown is still installed by the debian-installer as > > > > > default network interfaces manager. And after sleeping over it, and > > > > > discussing with debian fellows, I would like to call for consensus to > > > > > rise Priority: Important to dhcpcd-base (as initially requested in > > > > > #1038882), and switch to Recommends: dhcpcd-base | dhcp-client. > > > > > > > > > > This addresses two scenarios: keep some systems as small as possible > > > > > (ifupdown users can remove dhcpcd if they want) and having a useful > > > > > dhcp > > > > > client available after installing/bootstrapping. > > > > > > > > > > So I would like to retitle #1038882 back as originally reported. > > > > > (Sorry > > > > > for going back and forth) Objections? > > > > > > > > > > The situation regarding the default network interfaces manager could > > > > > change, even in the short term. But that could be discussed in another > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > No objection. Raising the priority of dhcpcd-base to important works > > > > for me. > > > > > > Have we reached a conclusion? Are we moving ahead with this or not? > > > > What is the current situation? > > Michael replied that an upgrade would result in both remaining > installed. That is precisely the situation that I previously tried to > avoid by having a Conflicts against other dhcp-clients. I've been told > that this was the incorrect approach, so I removed the Conflicts. > > Rhys asked what happens if both are installed. As per interfaces(5): > dhclient, udhcpc, dhcpcd - in order of precedence. Basically, ensuring > that dhcpcd gets used would require a change to ifupdown's search > order. This could easily be coordinated during this development cycle. > > Martin-Éric
Any updates on this? I think that the change in priorities is an sensible move, at least while ifupdown is installed by debootstrap? Cheers, -- Santiago
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
