| 1 |
Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
| 2 |
> for basic setups, it is completely redundant. which is the only case we're |
| 3 |
> talking about here. |
| 4 |
[...] |
| 5 |
> you keep saying "net-tools" when you actually mean "ifconfig". the net-tools |
| 6 |
> package provides quite a bit more than the common ifconfig/route/iptunnel tools |
| 7 |
> which ip replaces and for which there are no replacements. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If we talk about basic setups, then iproute2 provides everything too. If |
| 10 |
for some reason the user prefers to use ifconfig over ip, or needs |
| 11 |
functions not covered by iproute2 (are you referring to netstat?), then |
| 12 |
he can install net-tools. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There is indeed no compelling reason to use ip over ifconfig presently, |
| 15 |
however if the cf80211 vs. wext situation is an indicator (where things |
| 16 |
like wireless regulatory support are only supported by iw and will never |
| 17 |
be by iwconfig), then at some point the migration will be inevitable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>> Do you need iproute2 at all? I think you could fall back to busybox if |
| 20 |
>> iproute2 is not installed. |
| 21 |
> that introduces an unnecessary level of instability for us to worry |
| 22 |
about imo. |
| 23 |
> if we want iproute, we should execute `ip` only. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
It was only meant as a fallback, if the user needs to uninstall |
| 26 |
iproute2. Having some potential instability may be preferable to not |
| 27 |
working at all. |
| 28 |
openrc can already use busybox udhcpc instead of dhcpcd, so there is a |
| 29 |
precedent. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
Archives