Randy McMurchy wrote: > You have a point, but I loathe IP-Route. You wouldn't believe the > amount of folks I encounter that don't understand why a perfectly > good tool such as ifconfig was replaced. > > I will continue to use it and promote its use. Sorry. >
Hehe A2D. Can't ditch the typical unix mentality and use one tool for 3 jobs? ;-) ip's syntax just seems more agreeable to me I guess. > Now that said, I do need to accommodate LFS and its use of IP-Route. > I thought I put an incidental mention that you could eliminate the > patch if you have Net-Tools installed. I install Net-Tools in LFS > still to this day and really see no need to change. I didn't think > the mention was overkill. If someone wants ifconfig, they won't mind > installing the Net-Tools package. > > Tell me how we can phrase it so that folks will know that you can > still use ifconfig. I'm wide open to suggestions. I don't want to > eliminate the mention of ifconfig altogether though. > I can go either way, but the easiest is to put the dependency back. Didn't we hit this one before with the ISC dhclient? What was done there? How about the same...put the dependency as the second one on the line and append a similar note: > Required > > Net-tools-1.60 (you may omit net-tools by using the optional patch to utilize > iproute2. I'll fix it up in just a sec and make the patch optional, because it really is an option. I was trying to oversimplify things. -- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
