On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Isenmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:51 +0200 > Thomas Bächler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Aaron Griffin schrieb: >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't >> >> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not >> >> connected directly on the line. >> > >> > If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be >> > broken" signoff >> >> I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be >> established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this >> package has are: >> >> 1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set it >> up. We could include some example configuration like this in the pppd >> package though. >> >> 2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core. >> >> With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while >> rp-pppoe does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead >> anyway. >> >> I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra. > > I can't give any comments on that. I really don't use it and have never > used it. > > I trust your statement. Any complains about moving to extra? If no, you > can move it.
Maybe we should ask the users who actually use it - see if there is any rational reason they *depend* on it as opposed to pppd
