Bryan Kadzban wrote: > Qrux wrote: >> For 7.2 & beyond... >> >> Bridge-utils is not dissimilar from udev, in that it's a userspace >> tool for a kernel. And, it's certainly no less optional than >> inettools. > > I disagree -- assuming by "inettools" you mean "inetutils", because the > former is not in LFS. > > hostname is required for X (it runs "hostname -f" at startup), and > ping/traceroute/telnet are extremely useful when debugging broken > networking. > > But brctl is utterly useless, *unless* you're running a bridge. (Or > you're trying to create firmware for a switch, which is just a > larger-than-two-devices bridge.) I doubt most people are doing either > of those two things. > >> Ethtool is the same story...another userspace kernel tool to inspect >> hardware. It replaces mii-tool, now deprecated. > > There is no ethtool package in either BLFS or LFS, and no mention of an > ethtool binary in any of the other packages either (at least as far as > Google will tell me). mii-tool is not in LFS either, ever since > net-tools got ripped out, several versions ago. > >> So, I propose bridge-utils and ethtool be moved into LFS. > > For the reasons above, I disagree. At least on bridge-utils, though > ethtool doesn't even exist in BLFS, so that's pushing it too I think.
Bryan, Your arguments are persuasive. We might want to add Ethtool to the network utilities section of BLFS, but it seems to be a bit redundant over ip and net-tools. I notice the latest version is ethtool-3.2 dated just last month. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
