Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   ArchLinux Development (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/)
-   -   iproute2 to base (http://www.linux-archive.org/archlinux-development/712507-iproute2-base.html)

Daniel Wallace 10-15-2012 05:16 PM

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

Ronald van Haren 10-15-2012 06:05 PM

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

Pierre Schmitz 10-15-2012 06:10 PM

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

Daniel Wallace 10-15-2012 06:12 PM

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

Thomas Bächler 10-15-2012 06:48 PM

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.

Gaetan Bisson 10-15-2012 11:50 PM

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

Gaetan Bisson 10-16-2012 01:29 AM

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


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:41 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.