From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1RPeS3-0000iz-3q for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:06:44 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C2E1D21C1CB; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1988921C1A6 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.178.20] (e178070230.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.178.70.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: chithanh) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 26DF21B4013 for ; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:04:54 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EC006C9.3070802@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:04:57 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2jDrS1UaGFuaCBDaHJpc3RvcGhlciBOZ3V54buFbg==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111031 Firefox/7.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.4.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: openrc: use iproute2 for all network handling in linux References: <20111111215344.GA31226@linux1> <201111122347.50608.vapier@gentoo.org> <4EBFDF4F.3040506@gentoo.org> <201111131224.41050.vapier@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <201111131224.41050.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4a1pre Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 7d0643fa-3df8-4856-85b4-8a045dedf876 X-Archives-Hash: 1ef90d366143ba8361d25e23e4d34711 Mike Frysinger schrieb: >> If we talk about basic setups, then iproute2 provides everything too. >=20 > no one said otherwise. i did however say requiring iproute2 for static= =20 > ip/route setups is redundant. i see you agree. It is redundant as long as net-tools is in the system set. >> for some reason the user prefers to use ifconfig over ip, or needs >> functions not covered by iproute2 (are you referring to netstat?), the= n >> he can install net-tools. >=20 > we aren't talking about removing net-tools from system. nightmorph first brought this up. > until we have=20 > 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? > i'd also suspect that many scripts (packages/users) execute ifconfig to= get=20 > network information. obviously hard to quantify, but that's what you g= et for=20 > having a util that has existed for ~30 years, and for ~20 years more th= an=20 > iproute2. That's ok. Packages which parse ifconfig output will then have to set a dependency on it. Users who run scripts that assume presence of ifconfig will need to install net-tools. >> openrc can already use busybox udhcpc instead of dhcpcd, so there is a >> precedent. >=20 > that's not the same thing at all. `udhcpc` is not intended to be a dro= p-in=20 > replacement for `dhcpcd`. we have a dedicated module to work with udhc= pc, and=20 > we have another dedicated module to work with dhcpcd. So if someone creates a "busybox_ip" module (which would essentially be a copy of the iproute2 module) then it will suddenly become the same thin= g? > to be clear, my problem is with dropping the ifconfig module completely= . i=20 > don't have a problem with requiring iproute2 for more complicated thing= s, or=20 > even for making it part of the Linux system set. but these are orthogo= nal=20 > issues imo to the question "should openrc contain support for ifconfig/= route". Having the openrc ifconfig code around in case someone still wants/needs it is something I fully agree with. Best regards, Ch=C3=AD-Thanh Christopher Nguy=E1=BB=85n