FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-15-2008, 05:34 PM
Daniel Isenmann
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

Hi,

above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't
test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
connected directly on the line.


Daniel
 
Old 07-17-2008, 10:16 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann
<daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't
> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
> connected directly on the line.

If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be
broken" signoff
 
Old 07-18-2008, 12:29 PM
"Hugo Doria"
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

Signoff (i686)

-- Hugo
 
Old 07-24-2008, 12:27 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

Aaron Griffin schrieb:

On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann
<daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:

Hi,

above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't
test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
connected directly on the line.


If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be
broken" signoff


I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be
established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this
package has are:


1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set it up.
We could include some example configuration like this in the pppd
package though.


2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core.

With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while rp-pppoe
does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead anyway.


I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra.
 
Old 07-24-2008, 01:50 PM
Daniel Isenmann
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:51 +0200
Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:

> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann
> > <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't
> >> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
> >> connected directly on the line.
> >
> > If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be
> > broken" signoff
>
> I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be
> established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this
> package has are:
>
> 1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set it
> up. We could include some example configuration like this in the pppd
> package though.
>
> 2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core.
>
> With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while
> rp-pppoe does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead
> anyway.
>
> I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra.

I can't give any comments on that. I really don't use it and have never
used it.

I trust your statement. Any complains about moving to extra? If no, you
can move it.

Daniel
 
Old 07-24-2008, 03:31 PM
"Aaron Griffin"
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:51 +0200
> Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
>
>> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
>> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann
>> > <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I can't
>> >> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
>> >> connected directly on the line.
>> >
>> > If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be
>> > broken" signoff
>>
>> I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be
>> established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this
>> package has are:
>>
>> 1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read
>> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set it
>> up. We could include some example configuration like this in the pppd
>> package though.
>>
>> 2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core.
>>
>> With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while
>> rp-pppoe does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead
>> anyway.
>>
>> I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra.
>
> I can't give any comments on that. I really don't use it and have never
> used it.
>
> I trust your statement. Any complains about moving to extra? If no, you
> can move it.

Maybe we should ask the users who actually use it - see if there is
any rational reason they *depend* on it as opposed to pppd
 
Old 07-24-2008, 04:13 PM
Hussam Al-Tayeb
 
Default rp-pppoe 3.10-1

On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:31 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Isenmann
> <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:51 +0200
> > Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Aaron Griffin schrieb:
> >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann
> >> > <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I
> can't
> >> >> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not
> >> >> connected directly on the line.
> >> >
> >> > If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be
> >> > broken" signoff
> >>
> >> I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be
> >> established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this
> >> package has are:
> >>
> >> 1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read
> >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set
> it
> >> up. We could include some example configuration like this in the
> pppd
> >> package though.
> >>
> >> 2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core.
> >>
> >> With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while
> >> rp-pppoe does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead
> >> anyway.
> >>
> >> I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra.
> >
> > I can't give any comments on that. I really don't use it and have
> never
> > used it.
> >
> > I trust your statement. Any complains about moving to extra? If no,
> you
> > can move it.
>
> Maybe we should ask the users who actually use it - see if there is
> any rational reason they *depend* on it as opposed to pppd

Hi,
Please keep this package in core. It's very easy to use and helps a lot
when you need connection from cd. Direct pppd usage is harder if you
have no internet access to get documentation.
Keeping rp-pppoe in core cd is very convenient so please consider
keeping it.

Thank you in advance,
Hussam.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:19 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org