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

Bug#786902: O: ifupdown -- high level tools to configure network interfaces



retitle 786902 ITA: ifupdown -- high level tools to configure network
owner 786902 !
thanks

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:45:22PM +0200, Andrew Shadura wrote:

> This is that time of the year when I finally need to orphan ifupdown
> package. It's been quite some time already since I first thought about
> this, and I have finally understood I have no intent to maintain this
> package any more. I stopped using it myself about a month ago, and I
> doubt I will really work on improving it any further.

Thank you very much for your work on ifupdown. I'm using it on a lot of
systems.

> In current state ifupdown is probably good enough for what it is used
> for, except a few bugs. For advanced uses, it seems, Python-based
> ifupdown2 may become a good alternative in the future, and some simpler
> things wicd, NM and systemd-network probably do things just well.

The advantage of ifupdown is that it doesn't have a lot of dependencies,
is small, and can be configured with a *simple* configuration file. Yet
it is very flexible and handles many network configurations. I tried
systemd-networkd a few weeks ago, but I don't find it very intuitive.
But maybe that's because I'm used to ifupdown.

I also believe some features that the other solutions have can be
backported to ifupdown. For example, I see no reason why ifupdown could
not be made to support selecting interfaces based on MAC address or
other criteria instead of the interface name. So I will work on that.

> So if anyone wants to take this package over and maintain it, go
> ahead :) If that doesn't happen soon, I will probably still do some QA
> uploads from time to time, but I can't promise anything really.

I'll adopt it, but I'm open to collaboration with you and Svante.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groet / with kind regards,
      Guus Sliepen <guus@debian.org>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: