iproute2 to base
 

Is there any reason that iproute2 should not be added to base? It is no
longer pulled in since initscripts was removed and moved to extra. And,
as far as I can tell there is no easy way to set up a static ip with
just the packages that are currently in base.
--
Daniel Wallace
Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
Georgia Institute of Technology

iproute2 to base
 

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel Wallace
<danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason that iproute2 should not be added to base? It is no
> longer pulled in since initscripts was removed and moved to extra. And,
> as far as I can tell there is no easy way to set up a static ip with
> just the packages that are currently in base.
> --
> Daniel Wallace
> Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
> Georgia Institute of Technology

Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.

Ronald

iproute2 to base
 

Am 15.10.2012 20:05, schrieb Ronald van Haren:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel Wallace
> <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
>> Is there any reason that iproute2 should not be added to base? It is no
>> longer pulled in since initscripts was removed and moved to extra. And,
>> as far as I can tell there is no easy way to set up a static ip with
>> just the packages that are currently in base.
>> --
>> Daniel Wallace
>> Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.

Not needed as netcfg already depends on it.

--
Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com

iproute2 to base
 

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 08:10:34PM +0200, Pierre Schmitz wrote:
> Am 15.10.2012 20:05, schrieb Ronald van Haren:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Daniel Wallace
> > <danielwallace@gtmanfred.com> wrote:
> >> Is there any reason that iproute2 should not be added to base? It is no
> >> longer pulled in since initscripts was removed and moved to extra. And,
> >> as far as I can tell there is no easy way to set up a static ip with
> >> just the packages that are currently in base.
> >> --
> >> Daniel Wallace
> >> Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
> >> Georgia Institute of Technology
> >
> > Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.
>
> Not needed as netcfg already depends on it.
>
> --
> Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
netcfg isn't in base either
--
Daniel Wallace
Archlinux Trusted User (gtmanfred)
Georgia Institute of Technology

iproute2 to base
 

Am 15.10.2012 20:12, schrieb Daniel Wallace:
>>> Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.
>>
>> Not needed as netcfg already depends on it.
>>
>> --
>> Pierre Schmitz, https://pierre-schmitz.com
> netcfg isn't in base either
>

As I pointed out recently, it should be.

iproute2 to base
 

[2012-10-15 20:48:46 +0200] Thomas Bächler:
> Am 15.10.2012 20:12, schrieb Daniel Wallace:
> >>> Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.
> >>
> >> Not needed as netcfg already depends on it.
> >>
> > netcfg isn't in base either
> >
>
> As I pointed out recently, it should be.

Possibly, but regardless of what we end up doing with netcfg,
iproute2 should be in base in its own right.

--
Gaetan

iproute2 to base
 

[2012-10-16 10:50:30 +1100] Gaetan Bisson:
> [2012-10-15 20:48:46 +0200] Thomas Bächler:
> > Am 15.10.2012 20:12, schrieb Daniel Wallace:
> > >>> Makes sense. I'll add it to the 'base' group.
> > >>
> > >> Not needed as netcfg already depends on it.
> > >>
> > > netcfg isn't in base either
> > >
> >
> > As I pointed out recently, it should be.
>
> Possibly, but regardless of what we end up doing with netcfg,
> iproute2 should be in base in its own right.

I just saw you removed wpa_supplicant from the base group too...

So if I understand your position correctly you are against individual
network connectivity tools being in base, but CLI/GUI using them are
fine?!? I mean, why not, but I thought base was supposed to be minimal.

--
Gaetan