1 |
On Sunday 13 November 2011 10:16:31 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: |
2 |
> Mike Frysinger schrieb: |
3 |
> > for basic setups, it is completely redundant. which is the only case |
4 |
> > we're talking about here. |
5 |
> [...] |
6 |
> > you keep saying "net-tools" when you actually mean "ifconfig". the |
7 |
> > net-tools package provides quite a bit more than the common |
8 |
> > ifconfig/route/iptunnel tools which ip replaces and for which there are |
9 |
> > no replacements. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> If we talk about basic setups, then iproute2 provides everything too. |
12 |
|
13 |
no one said otherwise. i did however say requiring iproute2 for static |
14 |
ip/route setups is redundant. i see you agree. |
15 |
|
16 |
> for some reason the user prefers to use ifconfig over ip, or needs |
17 |
> functions not covered by iproute2 (are you referring to netstat?), then |
18 |
> he can install net-tools. |
19 |
|
20 |
we aren't talking about removing net-tools from system. until we have |
21 |
replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be there. the |
22 |
host/domain related tools are required by openrc to set/get the |
23 |
hostname/etc... i don't think splitting it makes sense as we're talking about |
24 |
a package here that takes up less than 2MiB in total. |
25 |
|
26 |
netstat should be replaced by iproute2's ss tool. |
27 |
|
28 |
i'd also suspect that many scripts (packages/users) execute ifconfig to get |
29 |
network information. obviously hard to quantify, but that's what you get for |
30 |
having a util that has existed for ~30 years, and for ~20 years more than |
31 |
iproute2. |
32 |
|
33 |
> There is indeed no compelling reason to use ip over ifconfig presently, |
34 |
> however if the cf80211 vs. wext situation is an indicator (where things |
35 |
> like wireless regulatory support are only supported by iw and will never |
36 |
> be by iwconfig), then at some point the migration will be inevitable. |
37 |
|
38 |
funny thing about this analogy: |
39 |
- ifconfig/ip long existed before the wireless tree ... while the latter |
40 |
has moved on, the former still exists |
41 |
- the wireless tools did not have years of built up logic around ifconfig |
42 |
|
43 |
> >> Do you need iproute2 at all? I think you could fall back to busybox if |
44 |
> >> iproute2 is not installed. |
45 |
> > |
46 |
> > that introduces an unnecessary level of instability for us to worry |
47 |
> > about imo. if we want iproute, we should execute `ip` only. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> It was only meant as a fallback, if the user needs to uninstall |
50 |
> iproute2. Having some potential instability may be preferable to not |
51 |
> working at all. |
52 |
|
53 |
... which is why we have the ifconfig module |
54 |
|
55 |
> openrc can already use busybox udhcpc instead of dhcpcd, so there is a |
56 |
> precedent. |
57 |
|
58 |
that's not the same thing at all. `udhcpc` is not intended to be a drop-in |
59 |
replacement for `dhcpcd`. we have a dedicated module to work with udhcpc, and |
60 |
we have another dedicated module to work with dhcpcd. |
61 |
|
62 |
to be clear, my problem is with dropping the ifconfig module completely. i |
63 |
don't have a problem with requiring iproute2 for more complicated things, or |
64 |
even for making it part of the Linux system set. but these are orthogonal |
65 |
issues imo to the question "should openrc contain support for ifconfig/route". |
66 |
-mike |