On Thu, August 28, 2014 11:21 am, Christopher Gregory wrote:
> On Thu, August 28, 2014 10:59 am, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Ticket #5391 suggests using the ip command for bridge functions in the
>> services part of the boot script. For instance, it suggests changing
>>
>> brctl addbr ${1}
>>
>> to
>>
>> ip link add name ${1} type bridge ip link set dev ${1} up
>> ===============
>> Changing
>>
>>
>>
>> brctl stp ${1} on
>>
>> to
>>
>> echo 1 > /sys/class/net/${1}/bridge/stp_state ============== Changing
>>
>>
>>
>> brctl delif ${1} ${I}
>>
>> to
>>
>> ip link set ${I} nomaster ============== Cahnging
>>
>>
>>
>> brctl delbr ${1}
>>
>> to
>>
>> ip link delete ${1} =============
>>
>>
>> I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this. For advantages,
>> it means that the bridge-utils package is not needed.
>>
>> For disadvantages, the new commands are slightly more complex. We also
>> only install the bridge service script in the bridge-utils section of
>> the book, so that would need to be moved.
>>
>> The only place we actually use a bridge is with qemu and that
>> specifically calls brctl in the network scripts.
>>
>> We could move the modified bridge service to the LFS bootscripts and
>> always install it.
>>
>> My preference is to leave things as they are. I don't see much
>> advantage to dropping bridge-utils. It's a very fast build (2 seconds
>> in my log) and provides a pretty clear manpage. What we have works, and
>> the changes needed would be fairly invasive.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> -- Bruce
>> --
>> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
>> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
>> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>>
>>
>>
> Hello Bruce,
>
>
> Personally I would say to leave bridge utils alone. Despite the
> persoanal bent of the reporter the developers of bridge_utils have named
> it that way because it IS a tool used to create a bridge.
>
> I have used it extensively in the past without any problems. Why change
> boot scripts etc just because of one person?
>
> If they want to use something else then thats up to them. Not everyone
> does use a bridge anyway. I used it for virtubox on both Ubuntu and
> Debian.
>
>
> Quite possibly there are a number of other emulators that would make use
> of that very useful tool.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Christopher.
>
>
> --
> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
> FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
> Unsubscribe: See the above information page
>
>
Doing a little research, I have found the following article that suggests
that bridge_utils AND iproute2 be used for managing bridges.
http://sgros-students.blogspot.co.nz/2013/11/comparison-of-brctl-and-bridge-commands.html
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
