Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #554194,
regarding ifupdown virtual package name and mass-filing (if accepted)
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist

Hi all,

As you may or may not know, I've been working on an alternative
implementation of ifup and ifdown, which I call 'ipcfg', for a few
months now[1]. The code is now nearly at the point where I'll be using
it on my own laptop, at which point I intend to upload it to
experimental, too.

Since it intends to be an ifupdown replacement, and indeed provides
ifup and ifdown binaries, it will have to conflict with ifupdown. As a
result, I'll have to make sure that it can be installed as an
alternative to it, by way of a virtual package name.

As such, I'd like to propose the addition of a virtual package name,
"network-config-tool", that would be used for any package which provides
"/sbin/ifup" and "/sbin/ifdown" binaries. If accepted, I will also be
mass-filing wishlist bugs on packages that currently depend on ifupdown
only because they need to be able to use ifup and ifdown, or because
they have a versioned dependency on ifupdown to avoid certain bugs, with
a request to provide a "network-config-tool" alternative.

Thoughts, comments?

[1] The announcement and some more detail can be found at

The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to