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

To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
From: Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 14:40:00 +0000
Message-id: <[🔎] ZdiuQF4BMjsEMbgb@mail.bitfolk.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] f69b4b45-96ce-1214-1f9a-c65ceaa53c75@devrandom.pl>
References: <[🔎] a1cd0ed0535969dcbfb73c9fafa1a0e1669f56b6.camel@h5.or.at> <[🔎] f69b4b45-96ce-1214-1f9a-c65ceaa53c75@devrandom.pl>

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
> of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.

Unless a different driver was made instead. Which is what actually
happened.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Reply to:

References:
- Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl>

Prev by Date: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Next by Date: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Previous by thread: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Next by thread: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread