iproute2 to base

10-15-2012, 05:16 PM

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

10-15-2012, 06:05 PM

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

10-15-2012, 06:10 PM

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

10-15-2012, 06:12 PM

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

10-15-2012, 06:48 PM

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.

10-15-2012, 11:50 PM

[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

10-16-2012, 01:29 AM

[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