PATCH: udhcpc -- don't request set of options by default

[Stefan Hellermann]

L. Gabriel Somlo schrieb:
>> I am thinking - maybe we should just junk the idea of "default"
>> options to ask for? We can ask user to always provide explicit
>> list of -O OPTs to ask. What do you think?
> 
> I agree. Although others might yell at us if we change default
> behavior :)
> 
>> Please take a look at attached patch - will this work for you?
>>  
> ...
>>  
>> +	if (client_config.no_default_options)
>> +		return;
>> +
> 
> This returns before -O explicit options have a chance to be added,
> doesn't it ?
> 
>>  	packet->options[end + OPT_CODE] = DHCP_PARAM_REQ;
>>  	for (i = 0; (c = dhcp_options[i].code) != 0; i++) {
>>  		if ((dhcp_options[i].flags & OPTION_REQ)
>> @@ -107,7 +110,9 @@ int send_discover(uint32_t xid, uint32_t
>>  	/* Explicitly saying that we want RFC-compliant packets helps
>>  	 * some buggy DHCP servers to NOT send bigger packets */
>>  	add_simple_option(packet.options, DHCP_MAX_SIZE, htons(576));
> 
> Junking default options altogether definitely feels cleaner, no need
> to monkey around with all this '-o' stuff... :) Would anyone be truly
> horrified to see that happen ?

I think I was the one that requested this feature some time ago, and I've no problem with
this change, as long as it is mentioned on busybox.net :)

Cheers
Stefan

> 
> BTW, I really did like the [[ %udhcpc_opts%]] idea, I'd like that at
> least to stay... :)
> 
> Thanks,
> --Gabriel
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox