[arch-dev-public] Fwd: [signoff] dhcpcd 5.2.12-2
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ronald van Haren <pressh@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:29 PM Subject: [signoff] dhcpcd 5.2.12-2 To: Development Discussion for Arch Linux <arch-dev@archlinux.org> - signed the package. - added missing dependencies on inetutils (for hostname) and net-tools (for ifconfig) which are used by some scripts in the package please signoff both. Ronald
[2011-11-03 22:46:50 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
- added missing dependencies on inetutils (for hostname) and net-tools (for ifconfig) which are used by some scripts in the package
I disagree with that last point: since we are trying to deprecate net-tools, we should rewrite the two ifconfig calls with ip set and add iproute2 as a dependency instead. https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26739 -- Gaetan
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2011-11-03 22:46:50 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
- added missing dependencies on inetutils (for hostname) and net-tools (for ifconfig) which are used by some scripts in the package
I disagree with that last point: since we are trying to deprecate net-tools, we should rewrite the two ifconfig calls with ip set and add iproute2 as a dependency instead.
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/26739
-- Gaetan
Maybe, I don't have a strong opinion about it. Are there other people want to switch the dependency to iproute2 instead by slightly changing the script? I have a package in my staging dir already so I can push it later when I'm at work. Ronald
[2011-11-04 07:58:23 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
Are there other people want to switch the dependency to iproute2 instead by slightly changing the script?
I thought most of us agreed on that, as initscripts switched from net-tools to iproute2 back in June: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-June/020534.html -- Gaetan
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2011-11-04 07:58:23 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
Are there other people want to switch the dependency to iproute2 instead by slightly changing the script?
I thought most of us agreed on that, as initscripts switched from net-tools to iproute2 back in June:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-June/020534.html
-- Gaetan
I think that there is a difference between in-house developed applications and others (patching upstream to use a tool you like more is different than changing the code if you are yourself upstream). IMO if you want to get rid of net-tools we should start pushing a bit harder and patch the other applications that depend on it as well. If you don't trust it because it is old, you should not trust it with packages in extra either (although all debian patches have been applied in the cvs version we use so it still is in some sort of maintenance mode). I just miss a clear policy here. Sure it has come up before but there has never been a real push in removing it completely (which may or may not be as easy as it sounds). But as I said, I don't have a strong opinion about using either ifconfig or ip in the script. I'll move the package from my staging dir by the end of the afternoon (now + 5 hours) if nobody speaks up against it. Ronald
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:46:51AM +0000, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2011-11-04 07:58:23 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
Are there other people want to switch the dependency to iproute2 instead by slightly changing the script?
I thought most of us agreed on that, as initscripts switched from net-tools to iproute2 back in June:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-June/020534.html
-- Gaetan
I think that there is a difference between in-house developed applications and others (patching upstream to use a tool you like more is different than changing the code if you are yourself upstream). IMO if you want to get rid of net-tools we should start pushing a bit harder and patch the other applications that depend on it as well.
If you don't trust it because it is old, you should not trust it with packages in extra either (although all debian patches have been applied in the cvs version we use so it still is in some sort of maintenance mode). I just miss a clear policy here. Sure it has come up before but there has never been a real push in removing it completely (which may or may not be as easy as it sounds).
But as I said, I don't have a strong opinion about using either ifconfig or ip in the script.
I'll move the package from my staging dir by the end of the afternoon (now + 5 hours) if nobody speaks up against it.
Ronald
For what its worth, Dan and I tried to get patchwork merged upstream to - remove the explicit hostname dep http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/ticket/226 - remove the explicit ifconfig dep http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/ticket/227 5 months later, they've not even been acknowledged (nor has anything else). With dhcpcd not even supporting ipv6, I sort of wonder if we should be just applying these patches outself and/or revisiting dhclient. dave
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 12:13 PM, Dave Reisner <d@falconindy.com> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 10:46:51AM +0000, Ronald van Haren wrote:
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Gaetan Bisson <bisson@archlinux.org> wrote:
[2011-11-04 07:58:23 +0100] Ronald van Haren:
Are there other people want to switch the dependency to iproute2 instead by slightly changing the script?
I thought most of us agreed on that, as initscripts switched from net-tools to iproute2 back in June:
http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-June/020534.html
-- Gaetan
I think that there is a difference between in-house developed applications and others (patching upstream to use a tool you like more is different than changing the code if you are yourself upstream). IMO if you want to get rid of net-tools we should start pushing a bit harder and patch the other applications that depend on it as well.
If you don't trust it because it is old, you should not trust it with packages in extra either (although all debian patches have been applied in the cvs version we use so it still is in some sort of maintenance mode). I just miss a clear policy here. Sure it has come up before but there has never been a real push in removing it completely (which may or may not be as easy as it sounds).
But as I said, I don't have a strong opinion about using either ifconfig or ip in the script.
I'll move the package from my staging dir by the end of the afternoon (now + 5 hours) if nobody speaks up against it.
Ronald
For what its worth, Dan and I tried to get patchwork merged upstream to
- remove the explicit hostname dep http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/ticket/226
- remove the explicit ifconfig dep http://roy.marples.name/projects/dhcpcd/ticket/227
5 months later, they've not even been acknowledged (nor has anything else). With dhcpcd not even supporting ipv6, I sort of wonder if we should be just applying these patches outself and/or revisiting dhclient.
dave
I'm not sure. Roy (upstream dev) always seemed very active, but since last release back in April there has been no activity (apart from a single e-mail on their mailing list shortly after that relase). I don't know why the sudden inactivity by upstream but as the patches have been sent upstream months ago, I'm all for applying them. Not sure if I have time today, otherwise I'll push the package with those patches applied tomorrow and remove the one which is in my staging dir atm. Ronald
participants (3)
-
Dave Reisner
-
Gaetan Bisson
-
Ronald van Haren