| 1 |
Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
| 2 |
>> If we talk about basic setups, then iproute2 provides everything too. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> no one said otherwise. i did however say requiring iproute2 for static |
| 5 |
> ip/route setups is redundant. i see you agree. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
It is redundant as long as net-tools is in the system set. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
>> for some reason the user prefers to use ifconfig over ip, or needs |
| 10 |
>> functions not covered by iproute2 (are you referring to netstat?), then |
| 11 |
>> he can install net-tools. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> we aren't talking about removing net-tools from system. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
nightmorph first brought this up. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> until we have |
| 18 |
> replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be there. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I understand |
| 21 |
will be still the case after the proposed changes), why should it remain |
| 22 |
in the system set? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> i'd also suspect that many scripts (packages/users) execute ifconfig to get |
| 25 |
> network information. obviously hard to quantify, but that's what you get for |
| 26 |
> having a util that has existed for ~30 years, and for ~20 years more than |
| 27 |
> iproute2. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
That's ok. Packages which parse ifconfig output will then have to set a |
| 30 |
dependency on it. Users who run scripts that assume presence of ifconfig |
| 31 |
will need to install net-tools. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
>> openrc can already use busybox udhcpc instead of dhcpcd, so there is a |
| 34 |
>> precedent. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> that's not the same thing at all. `udhcpc` is not intended to be a drop-in |
| 37 |
> replacement for `dhcpcd`. we have a dedicated module to work with udhcpc, and |
| 38 |
> we have another dedicated module to work with dhcpcd. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
So if someone creates a "busybox_ip" module (which would essentially be |
| 41 |
a copy of the iproute2 module) then it will suddenly become the same thing? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> to be clear, my problem is with dropping the ifconfig module completely. i |
| 44 |
> don't have a problem with requiring iproute2 for more complicated things, or |
| 45 |
> even for making it part of the Linux system set. but these are orthogonal |
| 46 |
> issues imo to the question "should openrc contain support for ifconfig/route". |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Having the openrc ifconfig code around in case someone still wants/needs |
| 49 |
it is something I fully agree with. |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Best regards, |
| 53 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives