[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1107768: marked as done (unblock: dhcpcd/1:10.1.0-12)

Your message dated Sun, 10 Aug 2025 19:31:12 +0300
with message-id <CAPZXPQfC+OmBbG_XOyG30Xv5z9ATVN=jmO_k8n5RSm_rHNP9ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: Bug#1107768: unblock: dhcpcd/1:10.1.0-12
has caused the Debian Bug report #1107768,
regarding unblock: dhcpcd/1:10.1.0-12
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
1107768: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1107768
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: dhcpcd@packages.debian.org, martin-eric.racine@iki.fi
Control: affects -1 + src:dhcpcd
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: unblock

Please unblock package dhcpcd

[ Reason ]
As someone found out during the soft freeze, a daemonized dhcpcd competes with network-manager and other network configuration tools for control over the network interfaces and resolver.

Back when I took over maintenance of the package, I ended up spliting the init.d script and systemd unit into a separate bin:dhcpcd package precisely to avoid this. Apparently, that wasn't enough. I therefore just added a "Conflicts: network-manager" to bin:dhcpcd to further drive the point that having two networking daemons on the same host is a bad idea. This is the only change.

Meanwhile, bin:dhcpcd-base remains perfectly harmless on hosts running systemd-networkd or network-manager, since it doesn't come with startup scripts and is instead executed via ifupdown or some other network configuration framework as per administrator configuration.

[ Impact ]
Without this fix, bug reports similar to #1107683 are likely to be filed after Trixie is released.

[ Tests ]
None needed. It's only a dependency change (Conflicts: network-manager).

[ Risks ]
No code change.

[ Checklist ]
  [x] all changes are documented in the d/changelog
  [x] I reviewed all changes and I approve them
  [x] attach debdiff against the package in testing

unblock dhcpcd/1:10.1.0-12

diff -Nru dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/changelog dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/changelog
--- dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/changelog	2025-05-08 21:47:28.000000000 +0300
+++ dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/changelog	2025-06-13 14:09:46.000000000 +0300
@@ -1,3 +1,13 @@
+dhcpcd (1:10.1.0-12) unstable; urgency=high
+
+  * dhcpcd: Conflicts: network-manager (Closes: #1107683).
+    This ensures that a daemonized dhcpcd and network-manager won't install on
+    the same host and compete for control of the interfaces and resolver.
+    Meanwhile, dhcpcd-base does nothing without ifupdown or network-manager's
+    dhcpcd backend, so it remains harmless on a stock Trixie install.
+
+ -- Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>  Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:09:46 +0300
+
 dhcpcd (1:10.1.0-11) unstable; urgency=medium
 
   * [patches]
diff -Nru dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/control dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/control
--- dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/control	2025-05-04 22:16:36.000000000 +0300
+++ dhcpcd-10.1.0/debian/control	2025-06-13 14:07:26.000000000 +0300
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
 Recommends: wpasupplicant
 Suggests: dhcpcd-gtk
 Breaks: dhcpcd5 (<< ${source:Version}~)
+Conflicts: network-manager
 Provides: dhcpcd
 Replaces: dhcpcd5 (<< ${source:Version}~)
 Description: DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 dual-stack client (init.d script & systemd unit)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
to 3.7.2025 klo 20.27 Martin-Éric Racine (martin-eric.racine@iki.fi) kirjoitti:
>
> to 3.7.2025 klo 20.12 Paul Gevers (elbrus@debian.org) kirjoitti:
> > On 17-06-2025 14:19, Daniel Gröber wrote:
> > > Have you thought the implications of this this change all the way through
> > > to user impact?
> >
> >
> > What's the answer here?
>
> As already stated, there is no impact. The Conflicts merely is
> idiot-proofing the dependencies to avoid two networking daemons
> fighting for control of the same interfaces. I've filed a bug against
> network-manager to have a Conflicts against bin:dhcpcd to address the
> same case, in reverse.
>
> > > What's about bookworm users who currently have both dhcpcd and
> > > network-manager installed? Is the observed breakage in #1107683 so bad it's
> > > unlikeley there are any?
> > >
> > > What if some exist and are relying on NM config for conectivity? Would this
> > > break their systems on upgrade? I'm honestly not sure how apt tiebreaks
> > > with conflicts. Which package would get removed in that case?
> > >
> > > I'm happy to do some testing with debvm if we agree on this being a
> > > concern.
> >
> >
> > I'd like to see some reply to the concerns raised. Daniel, if you could
> > try and reproduce the scenario you're worried about that would be
> > appreciated.
>
> I'll happily address genuine issues. Daniel's "concerns" are whataboutisms.

Sure enough, neither of the two people who expressed concerns ever got
around demonstrating the negative impacts they foresee as requested by
Paul.

Meanwhile, Trixie is now released, making this bug a moot point. Closing.

Martin-Éric

--- End Message ---
Reply to: