Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
From: Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 11:19:16 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] a1cd0ed0535969dcbfb73c9fafa1a0e1669f56b6.camel@h5.or.at>

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.

Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just
wondering.

https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding

/ralph

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Orphaned Inode Problem
Next by Date: tree view gone in nautilus (gnome files) for debian ?
Previous by thread: Re: Meeting with the Development Team
Next by thread: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread