El 08/05/22 a las 11:24, Michael Stone escribió: > [apologies to package aliases getting this twice due to autocomplete fail] > > I've been trying to make sense of the NEWS item in isc-dhcp-client (that > alternatives are needed) in combination with the functionality of ifupdown > and what the implications are for debian upgrades generally. > > isc-dhcp-client as of the last upgrade is telling users to stop using it > (the default dhcp client for debian). > > ifupdown (the traditional tool for managing networking on debian systems) > has a Recommends on "isc-dhcp-client | dhcp-client". "dhcp-client" is a > virtual package provided by "dhcpcanon" (version 0.8.5, which hasn't been > touched in 4 years), "isc-dhcp-client", and "dhcpcd5" (which will trash a > working configuration managed by ifupdown if installed, as it will try to > take over interfaces currently set, e.g., to manual). This seems suboptimal > at best. > > I believe that ifupdown will attempt to use udhcpd if installed, which > should be a mostly-transparent change (except for the potential loss of > lease information and any customization of dhclient scripts) but it isn't > even on the ifupdown recommends list. > > ifupdown also (used to?) use pump, but that package went away a long time > ago. > > So what's the path forward, maintaining compatibility and not breaking > systems upgrading from current stable? Do we come up with a dhcpcd5 variant > that *only* touches interfaces it is directed to touch via > /etc/network/interfaces? Do we add udhcpcd to the "dhcp-client" virtual > package and/or make it the default for ifupdown? Do we fork isc's dhcp suite > and just continue to use dhclient? Revive pump? Something else? > OpenBSD maintains its own fork of dhclient, just to list another alternative. I haven't been able to take the time to work on this, but it is on the top of my ToDo list. Cheers, -- S
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature