On 10/05/2016 15:57, Felix Fietkau wrote:
> On 2016-05-10 15:38, John Crispin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/05/2016 15:35, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The iperf package appears to be unmaintained, the maintainers directing
>>> people to iperf3 instead (see https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf/).
>>>
>>> There is a fork of the original iperf package that's seeing some
>>> maintenance, named iperf2: https://sourceforge.net/projects/iperf2/
>>>
>>> However iperf3 is in LEDE as well, and works perfectly fine. It is a
>>> full code rewrite of iperf, and appears to be (mostly?) cmdline-compatible.
>>>
>>> I see no reason to keep both: iperf3 is the better project here.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a compelling reason to keep iperf around? This would
>>> mean switching to the iperf2 project -- either way the original needs to
>>> go.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> i would vote to drop iperf and ask people to use iperf3
> NACK. iperf3 cannot do multi-threading, so it is useless for many
> performance tests that I do.
>
> - Felix
>
then we should update iperf->iperf2 and drop iperf3 or move iperf3 to
the feed
John
_______________________________________________
Lede-dev mailing list
Lede-dev@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/lede-dev
