non-busybox dhcp clients (was: PATCH: ifupdown.c, udhcpc, and standalone shell)
Denis Vlasenko
vda.linux at googlemail.com
Fri Sep 29 17:22:50 UTC 2006
On Friday 29 September 2006 16:09, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> I've been thinking about ifupdown.c and dhcp clients; Eric is right,
> specifying a command line to bring an interface up and down should go
> under 'manual', not 'dhcp' :) as it might come in handy for pretty
> much anything one could think of...
Ok guys, communicate between you two and then send me a patch,
since I don't know much about that ifup thing anyway.
> dhcp should "just work", that much I agree on.
>
> Now, I'm wondering why busybox's ifupdown should care about any dhcp
> clients other than udhcpc ? If one uses busybox, why turn off
> compiling udhcpc into it and supply an extra binary for a different
> dhcp client ?
Because the power of Linux is in flexibility. I certainly would use
udhcp, but someone else may have his own obscure reasons not to.
> How big of a deal would it be for busybox to support udhcpc only ? If
> it doesn't do things right, let's fix it. If there's some extreme
> corner case that requires a non-busybox program to handle, let's use
> 'manual' :)
Let them first realize that udhcp is the only dhcp client with
which ifup doesn't throw scary error messages ;) on them,
and then _maybe_, after some period of time, remove built-in
support for non-udhcp.
For now, just don't forget to add a comment
(udhcp thing here)
/* YYYY-MM. these are deprecated, will be removed.
Use 'manual' in /path/to/that/config/file */
(the rest)
in you patch.
--
vda
More information about the busybox
mailing list