Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2

Matthew Burgess matthew at
Tue Jun 29 10:57:10 PDT 2004

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:10:22 +0100
Ian Molton <spyro at> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:42:11 -0500
> Tushar Teredesai <tushar at> wrote:
> > 
> > I would prefer that the package instructions be there only once. If
> > the only addition required is db, then why not add it to LFS? There
> > is no educational value in installing iproute once in LFS and then 
> > reinstalling it in BLFS.
> > 
> > Addition of db does not conflict with the current goals of LFS where
> > we are building a functional system, not a minimal system. The
> > dependency can be marked as optional along with the patch.
> db is too big of a package with too many options and comes in several
> annoyingly different versions.
> if all its needed for is obscure stuff like arp, I say leave arp out
> and add a note saying if you want arp, you know what you need to do.

Indeed.  If you take my original quote (which Tushar unfortunately
forgot) and remove the clause in brackets then I think that makes both
parties happy, i.e.:

"As long as we point to BLFS then I don't see this as an issue."

So, db essentially becomes an optional dependency.  If the functionality
it provides is desired, then the reader is pointed to the BLFS
instructions for DB (and any related packages of course).  iproute2 is
then in one place, and one place only.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list