Re: Bug#762762: Updating isc-dhcp udeb to dynamically link bind
- To: Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org>
- Cc: Debian Install System Team <debian-boot@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#762762: Updating isc-dhcp udeb to dynamically link bind
- From: Michael Gilbert <mgilbert@debian.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2014 13:27:49 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] CANTw=MOdvF8=1wWvt0v2fYYH_BWKV_aBCmJ2cRTwJPw_omRKmQ@mail.gmail.com>
- In-reply-to: <54539536.9030108@pyro.eu.org>
- References: <CANTw=MPrA+gtGXuYpuJE8fQ9O-DJk9NFOBRuuCZgu0Sst-E7qA@mail.gmail.com> <20141003030533.GD17341@mraw.org> <CANTw=MNyfajLNAfnpVhd387EPscZBEaR7U6q8vDqyJGvaYd_1A@mail.gmail.com> <20141005230200.GA5349@mraw.org> <CANTw=MNUE-pFHzW38fho4Fz6QT6Njo3FbWosR7W0RbKL=NH=kg@mail.gmail.com> <20141006015932.GC27352@mraw.org> <CANTw=MPB5cGpq1Oe6d_VPsOgGYK6o3Y2BqRRxWbA_ozLH6mz9g@mail.gmail.com> <20141006235202.GG25171@squeeze.pyro.eu.org> <20141007011138.GI25171@squeeze.pyro.eu.org> <CANTw=MPBb25nDU4q1uDfxrH2cPh3VfXHorfo6Xk-JcxG3sa0Kw@mail.gmail.com> <5452BDA4.1000509@pyro.eu.org> <20141031114225.2a0918b1@toshi> <54536809.2020906@msgid.tls.msk.ru> <54539536.9030108@pyro.eu.org>
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> On 31/10/14 10:44, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> Is it on kfreebsd, or on linux kernel too? I wonder maybe we should
>> switch to isc-dhcp on all variants/arches, and ditch udhcpc...
>
> Linux d-i only uses udhcpc at the moment. (Ubuntu uses isc-dhcp though
> IIRC). We did discuss converging on a single DHCP client across all
> Debian architectures, but:
>
> * it's way too late to do this for jessie, I doubt KiBi would even
> hear of it! d-i can be very sensitive to changes and this might break
> in non-obvious use cases that don't get tested much
Is it possibly a one or two line diff to change back to isc-dhcp? If
so, it is possible that it may be considered. Is that set in netcfg?
Since isc-dhcp was the wheezy default and there are quite a few issues
(including RC ones) stemming from udhcpc, it probably makes a lot of
sense to go back to what's known to work well.
Best wishes,
Mike
Reply to: