Proposed Change - RFC - net-tools to iproute2

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jun 29 13:51:37 PDT 2004


On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:42:06 -0700 (PDT)
Tushar Teredesai <linux_from_scratch at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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.

They did originally (when I had a comment inside brackets to that
effect).  I'm happy to just have iproute2 installation instructions in
one place (LFS), and simply say something like:

If you need arp then you'll need to install db from BLFS first.  If not,
then use the following patch that suppresses the installation of arpd,
and hence removes the db dependency.

In summary then, I think we're in strong agreement :)

Cheers, and apologies for causing such confusion!

Matt.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list