[BusyBox] udhp/dhcpd.c (lost/rejected) patch

[jean-marc.morin3]

To me, 20 byte extra in busybox (even for the most demanding in term of tiny
environment ) worth it compared to 500 (usually) in a init.d script to
deliver similar mechanism.

I did not get udhcpd running yet on any of my embedded project, but when
using udhcpc I have faced nultiple crash (not uncontrolled but still). Most
was due to crappy network link and I do not claim them as bug.

This was my 2 cents to this rather long discussion.

mjm



-----Message d'origine-----
De : busybox-bounces at mail.busybox.net
[mailto:busybox-bounces at mail.busybox.net] De la part de Doug Kehn
Envoyé : mardi 21 décembre 2004 13:05
À : Rob Landley; busybox at mail.codepoet.org
Objet : Re: [BusyBox] udhp/dhcpd.c (lost/rejected) patch

--- Rob Landley wrote:
> 
> But your argument about the need to be able to work
> around a nonexistent bug 
> is outright _silly_.  Maybe it's a good patch, but
> it's a really bad argument 
> for inclusion.
> 

Why is the foreground option okay for udhcpc but not
udhcpd?

...doug


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250