Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2

Jim Gifford lfs at jg555.com
Sun Jun 27 20:51:47 PDT 2004


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel Miller" <cheeziologist at mail.isc.rit.edu>
To: <lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 27, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2


> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> <snip>
> > IMO, showing the current set of open sockets (listening, connected, all,
> > or whatever combination) is absolutely essential in a *workable* system.
> > Whether that applies to a *base* system is going to be up to others, I
> > guess, but I would *strongly* advise that we include the functionality
> > somewhere.  If it's put into BLFS, that would work, but I don't want it
> > to just be dropped.
>
> I adamently agree. Netstat is an immensly useful tool and something I
> use on a regular basis. I would prefer netstat be part of LFS but I
> suppose I could see an argument for sticking it in BLFS. Just out of
> curiosity, would there be problems if one were to install both iproute2
> and net-tools? I'm not suggesting the book do this but I wonder if the
> two are interoperable as I am used to the syntax and output of ifconfig.
> Is it possible to do something like bring an interface up with ifconfig
> and then bring it down with ip? If so, it would make my move towards
> learning iproute2 a bit easier I think.
>
Joel,
    There is no problems having both installed, but I feel for an LFS
system, iproute2 is
suffcient. BLFS is the proper place for net-tools since, all it does it add
some utilitiy programs.





More information about the lfs-dev mailing list