Debian Bug report logs - #551034
New version of dhcpcd available

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dhcpcd-5: New version available

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 08:59:24 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: dhcpcd
Version: 1:3.2.3-3

Version 5.1.1 of dhcpcd is available at 
http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd and should be packaged for Debian.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #10 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

To: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:14:54 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Severity: wishlist

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #15 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

To: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: dhcpcd-5: New version available

Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:47:23 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Severity: wishlist

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #20 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

To: 497963@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:26:49 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Version 5.1.2 was released.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #27 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David Paleino <dapal@debian.org>

To: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org, Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Subject: Newer upstream available

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2010 20:29:38 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

block 563974 by 551034
thanks

Hello,

On Saturday 17 October 2009 11:26:49, Dennis Schridde wrote:
> Version 5.1.2 was released.

I just saw 5.1.4 is available on the website.

Simon, I'm packaging dhcpcd-dbus (ITP #563974), and it needs at least 4.99.14 
to work. What are your intentions regarding dhcpcd?

If you need help in maintaining it, please either file a RFH, or RFA, or 
directly orphan it.

We're really lagging behind upstream:

$ git log bb213ed6bfc39e2d21f00410916c980d1421e164..master |grep -c ^commit
996

(that commit hash is the "Releasing 3.2.3" commit)

Between the two, 80 files changed, 10967 insertions(+), 7146 deletions(-).

Please really consider updating the package.

Thanks for your work so far,
David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #34 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

To: David Paleino <dapal@debian.org>, 551034@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:50:06 +0000

David Paleino wrote:
> block 563974 by 551034
> thanks
> 
> Hello,
> 
> On Saturday 17 October 2009 11:26:49, Dennis Schridde wrote:
>> Version 5.1.2 was released.
> 
> I just saw 5.1.4 is available on the website.
> 
> Simon, I'm packaging dhcpcd-dbus (ITP #563974), and it needs at least 4.99.14 
> to work. What are your intentions regarding dhcpcd?
> 
> If you need help in maintaining it, please either file a RFH, or RFA, or 
> directly orphan it.
> 
> We're really lagging behind upstream:
> 
> $ git log bb213ed6bfc39e2d21f00410916c980d1421e164..master |grep -c ^commit
> 996
> 
> (that commit hash is the "Releasing 3.2.3" commit)
> 
> Between the two, 80 files changed, 10967 insertions(+), 7146 deletions(-).
> 
> Please really consider updating the package.
> 
> Thanks for your work so far,
> David
> 

I've been ignoring this for far too long because dhcpcd 5.x is far from 
compatible with the current version. If I upgrade the existing package, 
there will be lots of installations/configurations which fail to work 
after the upgrade and/or a great deal of nasty scripting to drag things 
along.

I think the best solution is probably a new dhcpcd5 package - such would 
be fairly trivial to produce, but take a little time to enter Debian, as 
a new package. The existing package has much history, and is carrying a 
lot of baggage already. A clean break would be good.

Please feel free to keep bugging me on this; I've been unforgivably 
neglectful of it.

Cheers,

Simon.

Message #39 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>, David Paleino <dapal@debian.org>, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi

I'm upstream for dhcpcd and have recently installed Ubuntu on one of my
machines and as such have a vested interest and now the means of using
my software on a Debian based system. I have packages prepared for
dhcpcd, dhcpcd-dbus and dhcpcd-gtk already and will work on one for
openresolv (resolvconf implementation) later today. This provides a
light weight alternative to NetworkManager or WICD.

The only big issue that I see with people upgrading are moving
configuration from /etc/default/dhcpcd to native dhcpcd
in /etc/dhcpcd.conf and existing /etc/network/interfaces inet dhcp lines
conflicting with dhcpcd running in master mode via its own init.d
script. The script cannot run before networking as it needs the loopback
interface and possibly wpa_supplicant started which would solve the
problem. One solution would be to sed /etc/network/interfaces and
comment these lines out.

Can I prevent the init.d/dhcpcd script from being started/stopped on
package upgrade/downgrade/removal/install?

Where can I post these packages for review?

Thanks

Roy

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #44 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David Paleino <dapal@debian.org>

To: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org, Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:29:07 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:

> Hi

Hello Roy,

> I'm upstream for dhcpcd and have recently installed Ubuntu on one of my
> machines and as such have a vested interest and now the means of using
> my software on a Debian based system. I have packages prepared for
> dhcpcd, dhcpcd-dbus and dhcpcd-gtk already and will work on one for
> openresolv (resolvconf implementation) later today.

That's great -- I'll need dhcpcd-dbus for future versions of wicd, that's why I
have an ITP open (#563974), which is blocked by this bug.

> This provides a light weight alternative to NetworkManager or WICD.

Oh, well :)

> The only big issue that I see with people upgrading are moving
> configuration from /etc/default/dhcpcd to native dhcpcd
> in /etc/dhcpcd.conf and existing /etc/network/interfaces inet dhcp lines
> conflicting with dhcpcd running in master mode via its own init.d
> script. The script cannot run before networking as it needs the loopback
> interface and possibly wpa_supplicant started which would solve the
> problem. One solution would be to sed /etc/network/interfaces and
> comment these lines out.

If I understood the problem correctly, can't you solve this with a proper LSB
header [0] in your initscript?

> Can I prevent the init.d/dhcpcd script from being started/stopped on
> package upgrade/downgrade/removal/install?

If you're using dh_installinit (or dh7), you can pass --no-start to it. See
dh_installinit(1).

> Where can I post these packages for review?

You can register to http://mentors.debian.net , and follow the instructions
there. Or upload your .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz / .debian.tar.gz and .dsc
somewhere on the net.

However, as Simon suggests in [1], maybe it's better to keep dhcpcd at version
3, since it's used by lots of people out there, and make a new dhcpcd5 package.
This would let us (Debian) handle the transition gracefully, i.e. people
wanting to upgrade to version 5 know what they're doing, and bugs will be filed
there. We'll still have a rock-solid version (dhcpcd 3), which will eventually
be replaced by dhcpcd5. Roy, do you think this is ok?

Kindly,
David

[0] http://wiki.debian.org/LSBInitScripts
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=551034#34

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #49 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: dapal@debian.org, 551034@bugs.debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:22:53 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 20:59 +0100, Simon Kelley wrote:
> I'm very much in favour of moving to a dhcpcd5 package. Given my
> terrible record in getting stuff done on this I'm not going to promise
> to do it, but I will sponsor uploads if needed, and I'll certainly test
> things.
> 
> 
> Roy, please shout when you have stuff available for testing somewhere on
> the net.

Great!

I've uploaded dhcpcd5, dhcpcd-dbus, dhcpcd-gtk and openresolv to
mentors@d.o

Thanks

Roy

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #54 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

To: dapal@debian.org

Cc: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>, 551034@bugs.debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:59:13 +0100

David Paleino wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 08:01:18 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> 
>> Hi
> 
> Hello Roy,
> 
>> I'm upstream for dhcpcd and have recently installed Ubuntu on one of my
>> machines and as such have a vested interest and now the means of using
>> my software on a Debian based system. I have packages prepared for
>> dhcpcd, dhcpcd-dbus and dhcpcd-gtk already and will work on one for
>> openresolv (resolvconf implementation) later today.
> 
> That's great -- I'll need dhcpcd-dbus for future versions of wicd, that's why I
> have an ITP open (#563974), which is blocked by this bug.
> 
>> This provides a light weight alternative to NetworkManager or WICD.
> 
> Oh, well :)
> 
>> The only big issue that I see with people upgrading are moving
>> configuration from /etc/default/dhcpcd to native dhcpcd
>> in /etc/dhcpcd.conf and existing /etc/network/interfaces inet dhcp lines
>> conflicting with dhcpcd running in master mode via its own init.d
>> script. The script cannot run before networking as it needs the loopback
>> interface and possibly wpa_supplicant started which would solve the
>> problem. One solution would be to sed /etc/network/interfaces and
>> comment these lines out.
> 
> If I understood the problem correctly, can't you solve this with a proper LSB
> header [0] in your initscript?
> 
>> Can I prevent the init.d/dhcpcd script from being started/stopped on
>> package upgrade/downgrade/removal/install?
> 
> If you're using dh_installinit (or dh7), you can pass --no-start to it. See
> dh_installinit(1).
> 
>> Where can I post these packages for review?
> 
> You can register to http://mentors.debian.net , and follow the instructions
> there. Or upload your .orig.tar.gz, .diff.gz / .debian.tar.gz and .dsc
> somewhere on the net.
> 
> However, as Simon suggests in [1], maybe it's better to keep dhcpcd at version
> 3, since it's used by lots of people out there, and make a new dhcpcd5 package.
> This would let us (Debian) handle the transition gracefully, i.e. people
> wanting to upgrade to version 5 know what they're doing, and bugs will be filed
> there. We'll still have a rock-solid version (dhcpcd 3), which will eventually
> be replaced by dhcpcd5. Roy, do you think this is ok?
> 


I'm very much in favour of moving to a dhcpcd5 package. Given my
terrible record in getting stuff done on this I'm not going to promise
to do it, but I will sponsor uploads if needed, and I'll certainly test
things.


Roy, please shout when you have stuff available for testing somewhere on
the net.


Cheers,

Simon.

Message #59 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: dapal@debian.org, 551034@bugs.debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:55:31 +0100

Resent as it didn't make it to the bug report

On 10/06/2010 20:59, Simon Kelley wrote:
> I'm very much in favour of moving to a dhcpcd5 package. Given my
> terrible record in getting stuff done on this I'm not going to promise
> to do it, but I will sponsor uploads if needed, and I'll certainly test
> things.
>
>
> Roy, please shout when you have stuff available for testing somewhere on
> the net.

I've uploaded packages for dhcpcd5, dhcpcd-dbus, dhcpcd-gtk and 
openresolv to mentors.debian.net for testing. Let me know how they work out.

Thanks

Roy

Message #64 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

To: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>, 551034@bugs.debian.org

Cc: dapal@debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:13:59 +0100

Roy Marples wrote:

I have the dhcpcd5 package installed and running. It seems to be
behaving itself and looks like a good start.

Some observations of things that should be looked at.

. The source package should be dhcpcd5, not dhcpcd, since the existing
source package is dhcpcd

. The initscript sources /etc/default/dhcpcd, but it doesn't define or
use any variables. At very least there should be an ENABLED flag, and a
distributed default file which leaves that disabled. Should it be
possible to restrict the set of interfaces here too? I'm not clear if
that can be done in /etc/dhcpcd.conf

. Coexistence with dhcpcd3

The following files are in both dhcpcd and dhcpcd5

/etc/default/dhcpcd
/usr/share/man/man8/dhcpcd.8.gz
/sbin/dhcpcd

dhcpcd5 conflicts with dhcpcd, so the man page and binary are OK, but
the default file isn't, since it's a config file that could be left even
after dhcpcd has been removed. It should probably be /etc/default/dhcpcd5

It's worth thinking about designing dhcpcd5 so that it doesn't conflict
with dhcpcd. Since taking a working system with dhcpcd and installing
dhcpcd5 isn't going to keep it working by having dhpcd5 take over,
making installation of dhcpcd5 cause removal of dhcpcd looks unfriendly.
The other DHCP clients in Debian can be installed simultaneously, I
think. The simplest way to do that would be to make the binary
/sbin/dhcpcd5 and the man page similarly. NOte that if /sbin/dhcpcd
exists, it's going to be called by ifup. If it doesn't accept the flags
that ifup provides and work compatibly under those circumstances, then
it needs to be called something else.

The preinst removal of files left by dhcpcd is wrong, a package should
not touch files belonging to a different package.


Cheers,

Simon.

Message #69 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org, dapal@debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:17:13 +0100

On 15/06/2010 21:13, Simon Kelley wrote:
> I have the dhcpcd5 package installed and running. It seems to be
> behaving itself and looks like a good start.
>
> Some observations of things that should be looked at.
>
> . The source package should be dhcpcd5, not dhcpcd, since the existing
> source package is dhcpcd

OK.

> . The initscript sources /etc/default/dhcpcd, but it doesn't define or
> use any variables. At very least there should be an ENABLED flag, and a
> distributed default file which leaves that disabled. Should it be
> possible to restrict the set of interfaces here too? I'm not clear if
> that can be done in /etc/dhcpcd.conf

There is no requirement for an ENABLED flag in initscripts.
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-sysvinit
I'll probably just stop it from sourcing /etc/default/dhcpcd as 
dhcpcd.conf can handle everything.

You can restrict interfaces like so in dhcpcd.conf
allowinterfaces eth0 wlan0
denyinterfaces br0

> . Coexistence with dhcpcd3
>
> The following files are in both dhcpcd and dhcpcd5
>
> /etc/default/dhcpcd
> /usr/share/man/man8/dhcpcd.8.gz
> /sbin/dhcpcd
>
> dhcpcd5 conflicts with dhcpcd, so the man page and binary are OK, but
> the default file isn't, since it's a config file that could be left even
> after dhcpcd has been removed. It should probably be /etc/default/dhcpcd5
>
> It's worth thinking about designing dhcpcd5 so that it doesn't conflict
> with dhcpcd. Since taking a working system with dhcpcd and installing
> dhcpcd5 isn't going to keep it working by having dhpcd5 take over,
> making installation of dhcpcd5 cause removal of dhcpcd looks unfriendly.
> The other DHCP clients in Debian can be installed simultaneously, I
> think. The simplest way to do that would be to make the binary
> /sbin/dhcpcd5 and the man page similarly. NOte that if /sbin/dhcpcd
> exists, it's going to be called by ifup. If it doesn't accept the flags
> that ifup provides and work compatibly under those circumstances, then
> it needs to be called something else.
>
> The preinst removal of files left by dhcpcd is wrong, a package should
> not touch files belonging to a different package.

The above comes from the view that dhcpcd-5 can co-exist with dhcpcd-3. 
Whilst they can physically exist on the same system both being present 
can cause a few issues:
* Confusion as to which dhcpcd version and documentation is being used
* dhcpcd running as a single daemon will conflict with dhcpcd per 
interface as setup in /etc/networking/interfaces due to start order.

The only valid reason for co-existence so far is that some flags have 
been removed from the commandline that could be used by other 
people/programs. dhcpcd-4 shipped with some compat code to handle the 
transition from dhcpcd-123 to dhcpcd-4, to give both developers and 
users time to migrate. Debian doesn't have this luxury as it skipped 
dhcpcd-4 entirely! However, a patch can be maintained to add these 
compat flags back again. I could not find the source to ifup my Ubuntu 
to find out what flags it passes to dhcpcd - can you tell me please?

So unless anyone as any other other reasons why co-existance is 
benefical I'll work on a new dhcpcd package today.

Thanks

Roy

Message #74 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org, dapal@debian.org, Dennis Schridde <devurandom@gmx.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 13:11:01 +0100

On 17/06/2010 10:17, Roy Marples wrote:
> The only valid reason for co-existence so far is that some flags have
> been removed from the commandline that could be used by other
> people/programs. dhcpcd-4 shipped with some compat code to handle the
> transition from dhcpcd-123 to dhcpcd-4, to give both developers and
> users time to migrate. Debian doesn't have this luxury as it skipped
> dhcpcd-4 entirely! However, a patch can be maintained to add these
> compat flags back again. I could not find the source to ifup my Ubuntu
> to find out what flags it passes to dhcpcd - can you tell me please?

After careful perusal of the interfaces man page (still can't find the 
source for ifup to ensure I'm correct), the only options passed to 
dhcpcd are -h $hostname -i $vendor -I $client -l $leasetime
These options still exist and are valid.

With the removal (or just non usage) of /etc/defaults/dhcpcd any 
existing user options are just ignored and the user is expected to put 
any configuration into /etc/dhcpcd.conf.

I've also solved the init script vs network/interfaces issue by grepping 
for iface * inet dhcp and aborting if such a match is found.

As such, I cannot justify a reason for having to maintain co-existance 
with older dhcpcd versions. The only question remainig that I can see is 
do we want to attempt to parse /etc/defaults/dhcpcd into 
/etc/dhcpcd.conf on upgrade? That would requre bash to be installed and 
I'm not sure that it's worth the time spent.

Thanks

Roy

Message #79 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

To: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>, 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:03:09 +0100

Roy Marples wrote:
> On 15/06/2010 21:13, Simon Kelley wrote:
>> I have the dhcpcd5 package installed and running. It seems to be
>> behaving itself and looks like a good start.
>>
>> Some observations of things that should be looked at.
>>
>> . The source package should be dhcpcd5, not dhcpcd, since the existing
>> source package is dhcpcd
> 
> OK.
> 
>> . The initscript sources /etc/default/dhcpcd, but it doesn't define or
>> use any variables. At very least there should be an ENABLED flag, and a
>> distributed default file which leaves that disabled. Should it be
>> possible to restrict the set of interfaces here too? I'm not clear if
>> that can be done in /etc/dhcpcd.conf
> 
> There is no requirement for an ENABLED flag in initscripts.
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-opersys.html#s-sysvinit
> I'll probably just stop it from sourcing /etc/default/dhcpcd as
> dhcpcd.conf can handle everything.
> 
> You can restrict interfaces like so in dhcpcd.conf
> allowinterfaces eth0 wlan0
> denyinterfaces br0
> 
>> . Coexistence with dhcpcd3
>>
>> The following files are in both dhcpcd and dhcpcd5
>>
>> /etc/default/dhcpcd
>> /usr/share/man/man8/dhcpcd.8.gz
>> /sbin/dhcpcd
>>
>> dhcpcd5 conflicts with dhcpcd, so the man page and binary are OK, but
>> the default file isn't, since it's a config file that could be left even
>> after dhcpcd has been removed. It should probably be /etc/default/dhcpcd5
>>
>> It's worth thinking about designing dhcpcd5 so that it doesn't conflict
>> with dhcpcd. Since taking a working system with dhcpcd and installing
>> dhcpcd5 isn't going to keep it working by having dhpcd5 take over,
>> making installation of dhcpcd5 cause removal of dhcpcd looks unfriendly.
>> The other DHCP clients in Debian can be installed simultaneously, I
>> think. The simplest way to do that would be to make the binary
>> /sbin/dhcpcd5 and the man page similarly. NOte that if /sbin/dhcpcd
>> exists, it's going to be called by ifup. If it doesn't accept the flags
>> that ifup provides and work compatibly under those circumstances, then
>> it needs to be called something else.
>>
>> The preinst removal of files left by dhcpcd is wrong, a package should
>> not touch files belonging to a different package.
> 
> The above comes from the view that dhcpcd-5 can co-exist with dhcpcd-3.
> Whilst they can physically exist on the same system both being present
> can cause a few issues:
> * Confusion as to which dhcpcd version and documentation is being used
> * dhcpcd running as a single daemon will conflict with dhcpcd per
> interface as setup in /etc/networking/interfaces due to start order.
> 
> The only valid reason for co-existence so far is that some flags have
> been removed from the commandline that could be used by other
> people/programs. dhcpcd-4 shipped with some compat code to handle the
> transition from dhcpcd-123 to dhcpcd-4, to give both developers and
> users time to migrate. Debian doesn't have this luxury as it skipped
> dhcpcd-4 entirely! However, a patch can be maintained to add these
> compat flags back again. I could not find the source to ifup my Ubuntu
> to find out what flags it passes to dhcpcd - can you tell me please?

To get the source on any sane debian system, just do

apt-get source ifupdown


> 
> So unless anyone as any other other reasons why co-existance is
> benefical I'll work on a new dhcpcd package today.
> 

I still bear the scars from an email I once got from someone who had
driven 200 miles to reboot a box which had dropped off the net as a
result of an automatic update to dhcpcd.

If it's possible to make a package for dhcpcd 5 which can be installed
and, under all circumstances, seamlessly replace dhcpcd 3 installation
then that's what should happen, no need for dhcpcd5.deb at all. I think
we've already established that such a package can't be done except by
stretching the backwards compatibilty features in the existing dhcpcd3
package to breaking point, hence the plan to make a new dhcpcd5 package.

Given that we've moving to dhcpcd5, it's highly desirable that merely
installing dhcpcd5 doesn't disrupt an existing system which is relying
on dhcpcd 3 (or any other DHCP client). Next in the priority list is
making the dhcpcd5 package as straightforward as possible, but top of
the list is not breaking existing systems simply by installing dhcpcd5.
It should be possible for  an admin to install dhcpd5, then configure it
at leisure and finally remove dhcpcd3 or other client.

To achieve this, it's necessary that installing dhcpcd5 doesn't cause
automatic removal of dhcpcd3, hence they can't conflict, and therefore
must no contain any of the same files. It's also necessary that a new
dhcpcd5 installation doesn't start trying to configure interfaces when
it is first installed, as these may be (probably are) configured by
dhcpcd3 and the wider ifupdown system. Hence my suggestion for an
ENABLED flag; though there are other ways to achieve this aim.

> After careful perusal of the interfaces man page (still can't find the
> source for ifup to ensure I'm correct), the only options passed to
> dhcpcd are -h $hostname -i $vendor -I $client -l $leasetime
> These options still exist and are valid.

Good, but what about <interfacename> which is also passed?


> With the removal (or just non usage) of /etc/defaults/dhcpcd any
> existing user options are just ignored and the user is expected to put
> any configuration into /etc/dhcpcd.conf.

> I've also solved the init script vs network/interfaces issue by
> grepping for iface * inet dhcp and aborting if such a match is found.

Aborting installation, or start-up. The best approach is to have a
dhcpcd5 package which can be installed and configured at leisure (see
above for more details)

As such, I cannot justify a reason for having to maintain co-existance
with older dhcpcd versions.

Again see above for arguments for this.

> The only question remainig that I can see is do we want to attempt to
> parse /etc/defaults/dhcpcd into /etc/dhcpcd.conf on upgrade? That
> would requre bash to be installed and I'm not sure that it's worth the
> time spent.

A dependency on bash is no big deal, if you want it.

I can understand that the biggest problem with making the set of files
in dhcpcd3 and dhcpcd5 disjoint is the man page: much better to be able
to type "man dhcpcd" rather then "man dhcpcd5". This is achievable by
using Debian's "alternatives" system. It would need a new version of
dhcpcd3, but that's quite possible.

Cheers,

Simon.

Message #84 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 19:32:56 +0100

On 17/06/2010 14:03, Simon Kelley wrote:
> I still bear the scars from an email I once got from someone who had
> driven 200 miles to reboot a box which had dropped off the net as a
> result of an automatic update to dhcpcd.

I'm not really seeing how that is relevant to the topic at hand as that 
scenario could equally apply to any package.

If anyone has the blame, it's the user for allowing a critical piece of 
software to be remotely upgraded and not validated locally first.

>> After careful perusal of the interfaces man page (still can't find the
>> source for ifup to ensure I'm correct), the only options passed to
>> dhcpcd are -h $hostname -i $vendor -I $client -l $leasetime
>> These options still exist and are valid.
>
> Good, but what about<interfacename>  which is also passed?

That also works.

>> I've also solved the init script vs network/interfaces issue by
>> grepping for iface * inet dhcp and aborting if such a match is found.
>
> Aborting installation, or start-up. The best approach is to have a
> dhcpcd5 package which can be installed and configured at leisure (see
> above for more details)

It aborts at startup.
So, on a virgin system with dhcpd5 installed, dhcpcd will automatically 
start and Do The Right Thing.
On a system already configured for DHCP via /etc/network/interfaces, 
dhcpcd will not start (via /etc/init.d/dhcpcd start).

> I can understand that the biggest problem with making the set of files
> in dhcpcd3 and dhcpcd5 disjoint is the man page: much better to be able
> to type "man dhcpcd" rather then "man dhcpcd5". This is achievable by
> using Debian's "alternatives" system. It would need a new version of
> dhcpcd3, but that's quite possible.

I've uploaded a new package to mentors.debian.net that uses the 
alternatives system.
However, I now get these errors from lintian
E: dhcpcd5: init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-remote_fs 
/etc/init.d/dhcpcd: required-start
E: dhcpcd5: init.d-script-missing-dependency-on-remote_fs 
/etc/init.d/dhcpcd: required-stop

I've tried adding a dhcpcd-5.lintian-overrides file, but it doesn't seem 
to work. Any help would be nice here :)

The issue is this - the ntp helper script will restart ntp via 
invoke-rc.d and as such /usr is required in $PATH. Now, invoke-rc.d is 
*optional* and it's lack of presence won't affect a Debian system with 
/usr nfs mounted from working correctly.

Any pointers on fixing this lintian issue are welcome :)

Aside from that, I think I've addressed all issues so the only thing 
left is to make dhcpcd-3 alternatives friendly which I assume you will do?

Thanks

Roy

Message #89 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Simon Kelley <simon@thekelleys.org.uk>

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:11:33 +0100

On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 19:32 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:
> Aside from that, I think I've addressed all issues so the only thing 
> left is to make dhcpcd-3 alternatives friendly which I assume you will do?

Any progress here?

Thanks

Roy

Message #94 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>

To: dapal@debian.org, roy@marples.name, simon@thekelleys.org.uk

Cc: 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:29:56 +0200 (CEST)

you can lower the build dependencies to from debhelper (>= 7.0.50~) to debhelper (>= 7.0.15). this way it will also compile on debian lenny. 
 is there any update on the status of this ITP? to make our project run well on debian we urgently need dhcpcd-5 and dhcpcd5-dbus being packaged for it! 
 cheers josch

Message #99 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

To: Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>

Cc: dapal@debian.org, simon@thekelleys.org.uk, 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:40:59 +0100

On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:29 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> you can lower the build dependencies to from debhelper (>= 7.0.50~) to debhelper (>= 7.0.15).
>  this way it will also compile on debian lenny. 

Dropping the dependency now gives this lintian error.
dhcpcd5 source: debhelper-overrides-need-versioned-build-depends (>=
7.0.50~)

I believe that's because of the override_dh_* section in debian/rules I
use. If there's another way of doing that without being large or ugly
that works with older debhelper then I'm all ears :)

Thanks

Roy

Message #104 received at 551034@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: David Paleino <dapal@debian.org>

To: Roy Marples <roy@marples.name>

Cc: Johannes Schauer <j.schauer@email.de>, simon@thekelleys.org.uk, 551034@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#551034: Newer upstream available

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:23:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:40:59 +0100, Roy Marples wrote:

> On Mon, 2010-08-16 at 20:29 +0200, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > you can lower the build dependencies to from debhelper (>= 7.0.50~) to
> > debhelper (>= 7.0.15). this way it will also compile on debian lenny. 
> 
> Dropping the dependency now gives this lintian error.
> dhcpcd5 source: debhelper-overrides-need-versioned-build-depends (>=
> 7.0.50~)

Given that we're already frozen for Squeeze, I don't understand why
we/you/whoever would support what is going to become oldstable in a short
time. IMHO, YMMV.

> I believe that's because of the override_dh_* section in debian/rules I
> use. If there's another way of doing that without being large or ugly
> that works with older debhelper then I'm all ears :)

Yes, that's the cause. With debhelper < 7.0.50~, override_dh_* sections don't
work, the suggestion given by Johannes is wrong, sorry :).
The alternative is:

1) look what target your dh_foo script is being run in. You can easily
   check this in /usr/bin/dh. For the sake of example, let's assume it's
   "build";

2) edit debian/rules this way:

---8<---
%:
	dh $@

build:
	dh $@ --before dh_foo
	dh_foo --some="options"
	# or some other thing to run instead of "dh_foo"
	dh $@ --after dh_foo
--->8---

Still, I think it would be better to backport debhelper to Lenny, than doing
all this (after all, the "~" in the version number [in the dependency] is to
help backporters).

As per the ITP: Ron, I will have some more time in September -- if you're
comfortable with that, I can sponsor you (but haven't reviewed your package
yet, so it might need some changes).

Kindly,
David

-- 
 . ''`.   Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino
 : :'  : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/
 `. `'`  GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://deb.li/dapal
   `-   2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #111 received at 551034-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thomas Hood <jdthood@gmail.com>

To: 551034-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Done

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:11:03 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The original request was that version 5.1.1 of dhcpcd be uploaded.

The repo now contains dhcpcd5 5.5.6-1.
-- 
Thomas Hood

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.