On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:50:25 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >>> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be
> >>> there.
> >>
On Sunday 13 November 2011 19:57:05 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to
> > be there.
>
> After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I
> understand will be sti
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be
> there.
After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I understand
will be still the case after the proposed changes), why should it remain
in the system set?
On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:50:25 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> >> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> >>> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be
> >>> there.
> >>
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>>> until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be
>>> there.
>>
>> After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I understand
>> will
On Sunday 13 November 2011 13:04:57 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > until we have replacement for all of its tools, it's always going to be
> > there.
>
> After net-tools is no longer needed for basic setups (which I understand
> will be still the case after the p
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
>> If we talk about basic setups, then iproute2 provides everything too.
>
> no one said otherwise. i did however say requiring iproute2 for static
> ip/route setups is redundant. i see you agree.
It is redundant as long as net-tools is in the system set.
>> for some r
On Sunday 13 November 2011 10:16:31 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> > for basic setups, it is completely redundant. which is the only case
> > we're talking about here.
> [...]
> > you keep saying "net-tools" when you actually mean "ifconfig". the
> > net-tools pac
Mike Frysinger schrieb:
> for basic setups, it is completely redundant. which is the only case we're
> talking about here.
[...]
> you keep saying "net-tools" when you actually mean "ifconfig". the net-tools
> package provides quite a bit more than the common ifconfig/route/iptunnel
> tools
>
On Friday 11 November 2011 17:01:43 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Do you need iproute2 at all? I think you could fall back to busybox if
> iproute2 is not installed.
that introduces an unnecessary level of instability for us to worry about imo.
if we want iproute, we should execute `ip`
On Friday 11 November 2011 16:53:44 William Hubbs wrote:
> has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig in
> openrc to configure networking on linux systems.
no, the discussion is whether we should continue to have ifconfig be an option
at all, not "always use ifconfig". as
On Saturday 12 November 2011 20:26:54 Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> Joshua Saddler schrieb:
> > if net-tools isn't being dropped from the system set, don't force our
> > users to install redundant utilities.
>
> ip is not redundant. You need it for e.g. GRE tunnels.
for basic setups, it i
Joshua Saddler schrieb:
> if net-tools isn't being dropped from the system set, don't force our
> users to install redundant utilities.
ip is not redundant. You need it for e.g. GRE tunnels.
net-tools uses the old /proc/net/dev interface, while iproute uses
netlink. This is very much like wireles
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:53:44 -0600
William Hubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389437
>
> has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig
> in openrc to configure networking on linux systems.
>
> I'm not asking that we consider removing net-tool
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 04:10:50PM -0600, Matt Thode wrote:
> I think that we should be using the new tools by now, it's been in
> development for the last ten years. There would have to be some sort of
> migration path for people to use though.
If you have iproute2 installed, and you do not ha
Matt Thode schrieb:
> I think that we should be using the new tools by now, it's been in
> development for the last ten years. There would have to be some sort of
> migration path for people to use though.
Those people can continue using the tools they like, what openrc calls
is not visible to
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 11:01:43PM +0100, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
> > I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's
> > ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the
> > benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of no
On Nov 11, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote:
> William Hubbs schrieb:
>> I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's
>> ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the
>> benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of not supporting if
William Hubbs schrieb:
> I realize there would be a trade-off if I stop supporting linux's
> ifconfig and route in openrc, but how much of a trade-off? Would the
> benefits of iproute2 outweigh the down side of not supporting ifconfig
> and route on linux?
>
> What does everyone think?
+1
Do you
Hi all,
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389437
has prompted a discussion of whether or not we should use ifconfig in
openrc to configure networking on linux systems.
I'm not asking that we consider removing net-tools from systems, because
there are tools there that we still need. In my vi
20 matches
Mail list logo
