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 proposed changes), why should it remain > in the system set?
you snipped the following sentence where i explained why net-tools can't be removed. iproute2 replaces *most* of net-tools, not *all*. > >> openrc can already use busybox udhcpc instead of dhcpcd, so there is a > >> precedent. > > > > that's not the same thing at all. `udhcpc` is not intended to be a > > drop-in replacement for `dhcpcd`. we have a dedicated module to work > > with udhcpc, and 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 thing? no. i don't know why you're trying to force fit an analogy that makes no sense. for busybox/embedded users, they'll have a system where `ip` is a symlink to `busybox`, and so the existing iproute module will be used unchanged. if there are problems, they can report. but that is a system where we know up front is drastically different vs an otherwise "normal" Linux system silently switching between the standard iproute2 and the simplified busybox replacement. the only way we could drop back to busybox's iproute2 is if we have the module issue quite a bit of verbose warnings, but even then i'm not sure. if people are creating network setups that need iproute2, and then then unmerge iproute2, then i'm not terribly sympathetic to their plight. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
