Community Packages

Please read this before reporting a bug:
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Bug_reporting_guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in the AUR. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#64203 - [cloud-init] pull in netplan from AUR?

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Conrad Hoffmann (conrausch) - Monday, 21 October 2019, 16:30 GMT
Last edited by Christian Rebischke (Shibumi) - Saturday, 26 October 2019, 14:26 GMT
Task Type Feature Request
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Christian Rebischke (Shibumi)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 0
Private No

Details

Description:

Hi there! Thanks a lot for moving cloud-init back into the community repo!

I have been working on getting cloud-init into shape again on Arch Linux, both on the AUR package as well as upstream cloud-init (see https://git.launchpad.net/cloud-init/log/?qt=author&q=Conrad).

As part of this, I have also added the netplan AUR package (https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/netplan/). One of the main tasks of cloud-init is to render the network configuration. Unfortunately, the Arch Linux support code that has been in cloud-init for ages (which renders a netctl config) does not work very well. To not break compatibility, cloud-init 19.2 gained support for rendering the network config with netplan on Arch Linux, but only if netplan is present, otherwise it will fall back to the old renderer.

My gut feeling is that many people might be confused or disappointed by the results of the old network config. It has some problems, and also the netplan renderer supports much more features. It is the "officially supported" renderer, so it gets updates and fixes and such.

So I was wondering if you would be interested in also pulling netplan into community and making it a dependency? I would happily supply patches and respond to bugs, but I am not a dev, so you would need to act as a proxy.

Just a suggestion, I think it might save you some trouble as well (e.g. bug reports), let me know what you think!

Thanks again,
Conrad
This task depends upon

Closed by  Christian Rebischke (Shibumi)
Saturday, 26 October 2019, 14:26 GMT
Reason for closing:  Fixed
Additional comments about closing:  netplan-0.98-1. I am going to add netplan as dependency for cloud-init, as well.
Comment by Christian Rebischke (Shibumi) - Wednesday, 23 October 2019, 22:27 GMT
Mhh this interesting.
Do you know if cloud-init supports systemd-networkd directly? I will be honest, I am not a big fan of netplan and I think there is really no need for it. I would prefer patching the cloud-init code that it can use systemd-networkd directly. I need to think about this for a few days and read more about this issue. My first step would be to open a feature request for cloud-init or just patch the old arch linux code in cloud-init.
Comment by Conrad Hoffmann (conrausch) - Thursday, 24 October 2019, 14:28 GMT
I totally understand your reservations, I had/have the same. However, I asked the cloud-init devs (I think it was on IRC, so I have no record of this) about this, and they basically said netplan is the officially supported way to generate a systemd-networkd config. In fact, if I understand correctly, it is the officially supported to way to generate anything, as the new cloud-init network config format is basically netplan (https://cloudinit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topics/network-config-format-v2.html). You'd basically end up re-implementing and having to maintain the entire thing in the Arch-Linux-specific code, and given how many edge and corner cases there can be, this didn't seem like a good idea to me. And when using netplan, you have the added benefit of profiting from all developments there (and in cloud-init by extension).

Depending on what you mean by "patch the old arch linux code", one could of course also pursue the netctl route (which the current code uses), but I also looked into that and had a bunch of issues with that. See https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-projects/2019-June/005248.html for some it, I have a somewhat better understanding of the whole thing by now but I still haven't gotten it to work properly.

Anyways, just trying to provide some data points here, take your time to think about it, I am happy to help you with the result either way!

Cheers,
Conrad

Loading...