Simon McVittie <s...@debian.org> (2024-07-14): > On Sun, 14 Jul 2024 at 17:09:48 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: > > Sorry, but no. Networking clearly is *not* changing that fast, in > > software terms. Many old tools still continue to work just fine > > after a decade or more. > > Yes, I think I agree with Luca's conclusion, but not so much with this > argument: the parts of networking that are relevant for a default > choice that lets users get started (approximately the subset supported > by d-i) don't move that fast.
Having finally “fixed” ifupdown support in d-i during the last cycle, unless I missed an obvious solution at the time (but then I didn't get a lot of feedback when I asked), a simple “I'd like auto-IPv4 and IPv6 on a WPA connection” configuration was harder to express than I thought… I ended up with the following, unconvincingly: https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/commit/815cdfccaa5567fdf53594d47545d97c235de68e Maybe it's just a matter of storing/splitting the configuration differently, but at least at the time it seemed to be a limitation of the design. Roughly at the same time, we hit some major ifupdown regression, which led to no networking at all after a default (automatic networking, no firmware, everything trivial) installation, which led me to reopen #1022843. While trying to improve the “restart” case, the much simpler “network at bootup” broke entirely, oopsy! https://bugs.debian.org/1022843#42 This is not to put any blame on ifupdown or its maintainer(s), I just meant to share than even “easy-peasy use cases” can be tricky with “good old tools that have been known to work reliably”: that doesn't quite match my experience. :( Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
