Re: proposal: dhcpcd-base as standard DHCP client starting with Trixie
su 10. maalisk. 2024 klo 18.54 Santiago Ruano Rincón
(santiagorr@riseup.net) kirjoitti:
>
> 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.racine@iki.fi> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 2:55 PM Martin-Éric Racine
> > > <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 12:55 PM Martin-Éric Racine
> > > > <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 3:06 AM Santiago Ruano Rincón
> > > > > <santiagorr@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
> > > > > > > > <santiagorr@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?
I think that we can go ahead with migrating ifupdown's Recommends to
dhcpcd-base and the search order for DHCP client implementations in
ifupdown's DHCP method.
Once that has been resolved, we can swap dhcpcd-base and
isc-dhcp-client's priorities.
Martin-Éric
Reply to: