Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-29 Thread Samuel Thibault
Hello, Chris Boot, on lun. 23 oct. 2017 09:22:29 +0100, wrote: > Speaking as one of the two busybox maintainers, we'd certainly be happy > to help make sure udhcpc is usable across as many systems as possible in > Debian. As James has mentioned the udhcpc code is Linux-specific > currently so

Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-23 Thread Philipp Kern
On 23.10.2017 09:36, Ondřej Surý wrote: > while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures > might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it > might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox > maintainer? Ubuntu has used dhclient

Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-23 Thread Ondřej Surý
Just to rephrase my original request then... Personally, I don't really care about the DHCP client used in d-i, but I do care about complexity in the bind9 packaging. The --without-openssl support will go away (probably in BIND 9.13) and I would rather unify the two sets of libraries into one.

Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-23 Thread Chris Boot
On 23/10/17 08:36, Ondřej Surý wrote: > Hi, > > while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures > might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it > might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox > maintainer? I presume you

Re: isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-23 Thread James Clarke
On 23 Oct 2017, at 08:36, Ondřej Surý wrote: > > Hi, > > while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures > might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it > might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox >

isc-dhcpd vs udhcpd

2017-10-23 Thread Ondřej Surý
Hi, while revising bind9 udebs, KiBi suggested that non-Linux architectures might be using isc-dhcpd instead of udhcpd due some problems and it might be a good idea to revise the decision now that we have a busybox maintainer? Cheers, -- Ondřej Surý