> On 08/03/14 14:42, Stuart Henderson wrote: > > On 2014-08-03, Scott McEachern <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd really like to upgrade to 5.6/-current, but for my connection to > >> work, I either have to abandon some features (MLPPP) with kernel-mode > >> pppoe, or go with something completely new, like npppd. > > Not currently possible, npppd is server-side only and doesn't do > > MLPPP (or IPV6CP). > > > > That's what I was afraid of. > > Theo, is there any chance of putting userland ppp back in? I'm sure I'm > not the only person out there that needs that specific functionality to > stay online.
No. The nppp stack should be improved. > I know you've said before that the code is horrible, there are too many > pppoe options, but there are some people -- like me -- that are stuck > without it. We just don't have a viable option. That is unfortunate. > Please consider putting it back in. People like me still use and need > it, and it's no hardship on your end. > > Please? No. This is 2014. Buy a device which does plain pppoe (trivial), or convince the maintainers of the other ppp code bases in the tree to support the missing parts. I recognize this second part is a difficulty. There is a certain point in time at which "general purpose operating system" means we draw the line at insane stuff which is complete unmaintained and not neccessary. Finally, you did throw in a line about the code being horrible. You misunderstand. It isn't that it is horrible -- IT IS FULL OF HOLES. It would be deeply irresponsible to put it back into the tree. It is deeply irresponsible that it stayed in the tree as long as it did.
