Matthew Burgess matthew at
Tue Jun 29 11:19:14 PDT 2004

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:34:16 -0500
Tushar Teredesai <tushar at> wrote:

> Matthew Burgess wrote:
> >Do you mind if you take net-tools off of LFS' hands?  There's been a
> >discussion at
> >
> >tml to move LFS over to iproute2.  However net-tools offer
> > that are useful and complement iproute2's
> >offerings.  Would BLFS have a problem in nicking net-tools off us, as
> >we obviously don't want it to end up in the equivalent of /dev/null.
> >  
> >
> If net-tools is the depracated way of handling networking, perhaps it 
> would better fit in as a hint instead of in BLFS. Note that this is
> not a vote for/against inclusion, just food for thought.

>From what I understand (i.e. there may be errors/omissions in the
following), iproute2 is the preferred method of handling _routing_. 
That is, bringing interfaces up & down and setting the routing tables
up.  net-tools offers some additional tools, such as `netstat` that
offer networking related diagnostics (such as showing open
connections, etc.) but also includes routing facilities of its own
('ifconfig', 'route', etc.).  From a quick look at the output of `make
config` it isn't easy to suppress the building/installation of these
tools that would effectively be made redundant by iproute2.  That may or
may not be a problem for people.  As has been mentioned before,
net-tools doesn't overwrite any binaries (i.e. they don't have the same
names as any of the iproute2 binaries), but just supply duplicate



More information about the blfs-dev mailing list