On ons, 2007-12-19 at 11:00 -0800, Matt Taggart wrote: > The only problem I know if with iproute is that it is Priority: optional. This is not really a problem, we'll make it Priority: important as soon as ifupdown is ready to move over.
> Having bugs open in the BTS for a long time is not a personal reflection on > the maintainer of the package or the quality of the package. Nor was it my > intent to demand that you personally drive any sort of transition. The BTS > is a tool used to make debian better. Now maybe it suffers from "if you > have a hammer everything looks like a nail" problem... I agree and I'm definitely taking bug reports as a personall offence, but at the same time it's cluttering up the bug page distracting attention away from the "real" bugs. I guess this is what you are saying by the hammer quote (sorry, I'm not a native english speaker so my understanding is limited). > Do you agree that debian should move to iproute as the default way of > configuring networking? If so, how would you like to track that transition? I fully agree, and that's why I'm actively working on it. My preference on how to do it is to identify the actual problems and report them individually against the package where they exist (hopefully including a patch if possible). Meta-bugreports like "We should improve Debian" doesn't really help much on the way here. You'll probably be happy to know that I've just sent another patch to #456918, which restores backwards compatability for the "hwaddress" option in /etc/network/interfaces. Now the only backwards-incompatible change is that the "media" option is removed (which means it will be ignored), but writing about this in the package NEWS file is probably more then enough to consider that solved. A big remaining issue for ifupdown is still the problem on how to support non-linux architectures (where iproute isn't available). This is not something I'm interested in working on, and I hope it won't stop ifupdown from moving the experimental version into unstable (and soon testing after that). After the patch series I've sent is applied ifupdown is IMHO ready, not taking the non-linux architectures into consideration, for mainstream testing. Hopefully I can steal a bit of time from Anthony Towns soon and discuss with him what possible issues still remains before he thinks ifupdown 0.7 is ready for unstable. -- Regards, Andreas Henriksson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
