[RFC] support PEER in ipv4-static service

Kevin P. Fleming kpfleming at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jul 13 12:17:02 PDT 2004

Matthew Burgess wrote:

> Is this a suggestion for the testing branch, i.e. to compliment the new
> bootscripts & iproute2 setup?  I see it supports things like PPP etc.,
> which are dealt with more fully in BLFS.  I'm not averse to putting this
> patch in the book at all, as I don't believe it is sensible to have BLFS
> overwrite our default ipv4-static configuration.

Well, that's a difficult question to answer. The patch is not really for 
the book, it's for the bootscripts, so it's not necessarily related to 
testing, unstable or anything else. This begs the question of whether 
the bootscripts should have features in them that are not used in the 
LFS books (or even the BLFS books) at all, just because they are good 
things to have and some users will want to use them after they get their 
system up and running.

This particular item will be used if I decide to try to get OpenVPN into 
BLFS, as the best OpenVPN service script arrangement uses ipv4-static 
with a specified peer address. However, I've not even proposed that to 
the BLFS crew yet, so it really can't be used as a justification.

I've also heard from others in the group that "if users want to add 
these features they should figure out how", which may include using 
hints, patches or just doing it directly. While I can certainly see some 
value in that, I also think that distributing a hint/patch/whatever that 
adds 6 lines or so to an existing service script, and keeping that patch 
up to date as new versions of lfs-bootscripts are released, seems rather 
silly. However, if that logic is extended too far, we could end up with 
far more in the book/bootscripts that is really wanted.

I guess the real issue is this: the lfs-bootscripts are the one item 
that makes LFS most like a "distro", rather than a book. If we really 
want the bootscripts to be robust, reliable and not have to be edited by 
users to use basic functionality (even if that functionality is not used 
in the LFS/BLFS books), then these sorts of patches should go into them. 
No reference to these features need ever appear in the books; if people 
want to write hints on how to use these features that are already there 
that's great; obviously if someone asks on lfs-chat or blfs-dev others 
can point them to these existing features as well.

   The only worry I've
> got though, is that people will see the words "used for ...PPP" here and
> think that we're adding (or intending to add) complete PPP support to
> LFS, which I think was agreed not going to happen?

No, this is underlying functionality that _could_ be used for PPP, but 
has nothing to do with the LFS book itself. If there's a better place to 
discuss lfs-bootscripts development that is not book-related, please let 
me know and I'll move the discussion there :-)

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list