Hi folks!

I've been working on a merge-request for debian-installer/netcfg, which adds support for Netplan to debian-installer.

If and only if the `netplan-generator` package is detected to be installed in the target system, netcfg will write corresponding Netplan configuration to /target/etc/netplan/. Otherwise, it will stick to writing the traditional ifupdown or NetworkManager configuration.

Some discussions happened already on the MR since DebConf23, but I'd appreciate any additional feedback to the road to getting this merged!

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/merge_requests/9

Thanks,
Lukas

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEE496GmCL5m2y8NfJ5v322IrMDrIsFAmXTVqQACgkQv322IrMD rIvkTQ//QiKr28Wn1WufIOVqikqLLVsRF2FpMBqiZi+EKLlMT+cqbWPwDbJi04H6 oj9bMGiDC1ZiUbQi/vkZTFFRBgDluKQ1tBMM27C3Uke8i4UTdVfUvpQWZCDI66c0 RzaT2OoVwJDyi/kFPG1gJqqflnD5yEV+dkr4ormD778mdtJMIFbhhHS27OpTnUmB KCkFnbD9gQnNB3l/2pwTc1Nq+MRfE3T/x2+Mq0pfJHvvxZiGrWfZ/URI2oY4+k0z o5GYqxWanjKEj1pQuWC91y6glU3Mzn2ve4pBxIWYDgebDNrfqjqM2c6acuyfpQo+ o/6IsFIF76wHA4wqvsGe32UweDnklUagX/caW9YCsVO3qsHKLtpV4/eupj/tza8Z EhQiZHjYtysB56wlqz5AbUYDNOYFcDhoh0EtlHqFSUpLDiXX9zTgCHwXsRL2y/Sn TpMT8Jsb0YhB5cQ8SOMirpRqZ5nZB4xYq+7olpdXbY3ulboWyKvflL9wRkG+pk3s KluPMAAXFONfO28wa6d12RSrfM2UVXe0jf4lijUyRMnuxqfa0TH/Y7AQKoug0lDE AFGyo4gFcq9YrD7MaJshi8/McNqbpag4zjz4g58Fv98VudKRjc7R8i73Xnk4+XMf cJdh0q9y/IZiLiLq8tPY2FQT7qBC6DPMDrGLiZRH2iDYemkBwnY=
=3B8H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Lukas,

Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> (2024-02-19):

I've been working on a merge-request for debian-installer/netcfg,
which adds support for Netplan to debian-installer.

If and only if the `netplan-generator` package is detected to be
installed in the target system, netcfg will write corresponding
Netplan configuration to /target/etc/netplan/. Otherwise, it will
stick to writing the traditional ifupdown or NetworkManager
configuration.

Some discussions happened already on the MR since DebConf23, but I'd appreciate any additional feedback to the road to getting this merged!

https://salsa.debian.org/installer-team/netcfg/-/merge_requests/9

From an earlier look, I think I'd go for an explicit no-op (and comment)
in a netplan case, instead of just having the comment in a different
case; but that's really just cosmetic.

I'll try and get around to testing this soon-ish, then merge and upload
if that goes fine.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmXUACMACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCHdg//ZUOCOvJyImV998Kb278cgLguTa27gingCKB9g56+qxCsk+mxNsE/BAxY 4tyFDhPLbRPrITVMiBWetcTZQ1Suz8Gx3eOCabQ0LgSN6FULQFi6PFnRG2DgFQgN 1CucPDmMayyw7CiUaMkj4rODf7rmV8cGlZGf+3BKyOUiL3tr5PZx5YnSqvGBdpum zCyYd9BWIUwgTbZn2fngNvGecSrphjtHbS+/OTTNerbLmKtElX81yu1wXHBInpMl fyCKAfk1prIU+GuPvcxIdz60EILQcRxJ8Pahjwwrncy4aeLKpCB7NHXB14VkOy/f thyyI+jJnCOkS4bUV2QjfT+69Lh47q6umLeq5RknUJS0w0pxC5+s5cuXDK5YOogT CDhaucXwRRWKeHW6jiUAKw+3dNX3jQf0hsotGeQS7F4cGOfk8oaoX2YFOeN3ZCXe L82xDHKPT8zwhW9ghyFbK/cBSKfW+QTRLHpdeEGK+VMFVv0Ob+Ld6yOQ9XSsOMPE 6oIZUUmtyh7CJMBwgbIrZIMyZsXMarD9hsC5A2llvus0i5tIwuV1AvVYbwuNtXoJ L0v99gpZlURU4Ev2tLPk+y0sXO2KxmSYlcji4ceF8M2tgGm11d9QsxB1crH2fUoI kSZpXw8+OZCG/BtWgkgyKTiVdnVdlkQDnt/q5SFtCRO0Hnf0HjA=
=0BkO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*

Hello Cyril, Phil and others,

Am 20.02.24 um 02:28 schrieb Cyril Brulebois:

I'll try and get around to testing this soon-ish, then merge and upload
if that goes fine.

Thanks for the helpful discussion we've had so far on this topic!
I've rebuild a new image today locally, to re-test my Netplan enablement changes.
My old image (from February) didn't work anymore due to the new kernel version in unstable.

Turns out d-i was unable to finish the installation, due to installability issues of packages in the target system, especially systemd-sysv vs libssl3 in this case. The archive is still very much in flux and this is probably also why we still see d-i
daily build failures [0] (but its looking much better already!) and Salsa-CI failures for d-i [1].

I understand Cyril and Phil still being busy with resolving those and related issues. But if you need a break from that work, or anybody else wants to test the Netplan+D-I integration, I prepared a little write-up walking you through the Netplan enabled
D-I installation process:

https://blog.slyon.de/2024/04/25/creating-a-netplan-enabled-system-through-debian-installer/

Any feedback would be appreciated!

Cheers,
Lukas

PS: I prepared this demo walk-through on Bookwork, due to the archive/installability issues mentioned above.

[0] https://d-i.debian.org/daily-images/daily-build-overview.html
[1] https://salsa.debian.org/philh/netcfg/-/pipelines/658597

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Hi Lukas,

Lukas Märdian <slyon@debian.org> (2024-04-25):

Turns out d-i was unable to finish the installation, due to
installability issues of packages in the target system, especially systemd-sysv vs libssl3 in this case. The archive is still very much
in flux and this is probably also why we still see d-i daily build
failures [0] (but its looking much better already!) and Salsa-CI
failures for d-i [1].

What I've reported a while back, and what I ended up fixing last week
were all udeb relationship issues making it impossible to build d-i or
to run it (I don't have the details but I'm pretty sure all runtime
issues would already show up at build time anyway, and yes that explains
a lot of red on the d-i daily build graphs).

And yeah, at the moment we end up with a debootstrap problem when
installing trixie, since libssl3 is gone from trixie (except on 32-bit
arms) while coreutils still Pre-Depends on it. That's one blocker I've
just confirmed again, but didn't look for possible others. I haven't
followed recent progress on the 64-bit time_t front, maybe rebuilding
packages within testing might help get rid of such issues, that might
make some other things harder… Seeing how the package in unstable has
DEP-17 changes on top, I'm not sure I want to get involved in the
intersection of two gigantic transitions I'm not knowledgeable about. :/

Installing unstable is more likely to succeed though (as at least a
plain debootstrap sid works, as opposed to a plain debootstrap trixie).

Thanks for the write-up, I'll check it when time permits.


Cheers,
--
Cyril Brulebois (kibi@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/>
D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEtg6/KYRFPHDXTPR4/5FK8MKzVSAFAmYrpMEACgkQ/5FK8MKz VSCm9w/8CZk+FIxojvKUj19ZTX98Kbld6OxqkqVYlv/wy3oCmr1MECPFuZ6JBoXF eA8IouYIcQ1VZ8HQFChTbBfV9IrCSc0aOXaymBVCXilzFMwmzCFDK7joXRqBEfwj YCxLLcPnrmLNZByNh1BdbJ1aVtQjRstDjm5QGTLsZMhd7Vgydr02hbbmbQG5QVlX caPXcjnJBZSOtSUwpJVQHfBoT2b0bc/pPeplTRBdwylvbosHhLsKxra3kxsWhgd3 VTPen5Gh1sPY14QQlTG/eQOnQJYpPbqqyZcn1H3LBdDvkALPjOh3pEc3UQ+9cjsi IC2Sg3LenQa0glN0GZN4owJ7pt7tRv6VLRZMqJr9NWYZBNoEGeLry8V28gAq0POF 5QWdVhoBazGw+xgGcJKVus7FL1FN16fm9HuNubcncxExGdYt+/sy33gj7Ugm5eRk NWue450lZuA72Im4gzikWulEBpKCi+oldDzcdyhjzzw1RFJ6gFf4LDNC+H0U2SAN XUD1idUC97geecJAtHNlg+IAZV6Fm0m1zYGXsZ1RIYYyz0TKzp6YGIXODRCJDiJG AfuDHTbAAPVhYo9tcqVWdLaDrCypzcUkZRsURqOROkOHTTI1DiQX9aFnudD58Zyj JSqxQ6z5UdYHFMvAuZ1X5LhOXyVP3pp/mccMpChgqAZIDuWCFiY=
=Vi6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
*