[arch-general] [arch-dev-public] iproute2 to base

[Leonid Isaev]

On 10/16/2012 08:21 PM, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
> [2012-10-16 10:41:09 -0500] Leonid Isaev:
>> I fully support having netcfg in base (and as a default network backend in
>> arch) because it is far better than the alternatives :) I don't think that
>> wpa_supplicant/crda belongs in base (for instance routers don't need
>> wpa_supplicant but may require hostapd), but iw (and iproute2) definitely has
>> to go there as it provides some hardware management capabilities.
>
> Since routers do not need netcfg any more than they do wpa_supplicant,
> with your reasoning, it should not be in base either...
>

YMMV apparently, but in my experience a router needs:
(1) Some way to stick to the (usually creepy) ISP DHCP server, i.e. keep 
retrying to obtain IP if the DHCP server doesn't respond.
(2) Bridging support.

The former is solved with net-auto-wired (ifplugd is quite good), while 
the latter -- with "bridge" profiles in netcfg. So without netcfg I 
would have to write my own boot scripts.

> If we stick to the definition that the base group should contain
> everything needed too boot up a minimal system and connect it to the
> network, then I do not see how you can consider wpa_supplicant optional.
>

I understand your logic, but still think that wpa_supplicant should be 
optional. Since there are no core images, anyone who wants to use a 
machine as a station will install wpa_supplicant anyways over the 
already working network...