On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Datum: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 22:06:05 -0700 Von: Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> An: Public mailing list for Arch Linux development <arch-dev-public@archlinux.org> Betreff: Re: [arch-dev-public] Maintainers wanted for wicd and pure-ftpd
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 06:54:55 -0700 Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 4:16 AM, Daniel Isenmann <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote:
On Sun, 31 May 2009 14:43:21 -0700 Thayer Williams <thayerw@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:27 AM, Daniel Isenmann > <daniel.isenmann@gmx.de> wrote: > > > I use wicd on my eee. I have adopt it. > > > > Daniel > > > > Daniel, would you mind taking dhclient as well? It's a dependency > for wicd, is outdated and in need of some work. I don't use wicd > much these days myself and I don't really have the time necessary > to update it.
I can take it. Just orphan it and I will adopt it.
Done and thanks!
I have seen that dhclient isn't a dependency for wicd. The dependency is dhcpcd. I have adopt it anyway, but if you want it back you can have it, otherwise I will maintain it.
My bad! dhclient is listed on the Wicd wiki as an optional dep for DHCP functionality.
I guess the next question is...do we even need dhclient in our main repos, especially if the same functionality is already provided by dhcpcd?
If it makes the decision any easier, we don't even have a license declared for dhclient, whereas dhcpcd is BSD licensed.
According to Debian's package information the license is: http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/d/dhcp3/dhcp3_3.1.2-1/dhcp-c...
I think the license is provided in the source package and should be installed with the package.
I prefer dhclient for my needs and not dhcpcd. I will maintain it and I will have a look at the license of the new version. So, why not have two implementations of a dhcp client?
A dhcp client is interchangeable to me, but then again I don't do anything too fancy--if it polls and assigns an IP for me I'm a happy camper. I just wondered, with all the orphaned packages we have in extra, if it made sense to keep two packages that did the exact same thing. But like I said, I don't use either extensively so I'm unaware of any peculiar features of two.