Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2

Tushar Teredesai linux_from_scratch at yahoo.com
Tue Jun 29 13:42:06 PDT 2004


Matthew Burgess wrote:

>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.
>  
>
I thought the sentence meant that the "point to BLFS" meant to point to 
a new iproute2 section in BLFS.

If iproute2 instructions are in one place only, ++vote.

-- 
Tushar Teredesai
  mailto:tushar at linuxfromscratch.org
  http://linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list