On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 10:31 -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Daniel Isenmann > <daniel.isenmann@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:27:51 +0200 > > Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> Aaron Griffin schrieb: > >> > On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Daniel Isenmann > >> > <daniel.isenmann@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> above package is in testing for both archs. Please signoff. I > can't > >> >> test the package because I don't use it, I have a router and not > >> >> connected directly on the line. > >> > > >> > If no one uses this, you can take my awesome "blame me if crap be > >> > broken" signoff > >> > >> I wonder why this is in core anyway. PPPoE connections can be > >> established with the pppd package alone. The only advantages this > >> package has are: > >> > >> 1) A fancy configuration script. With pppd only, you'd have to read > >> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/PPPoE_Setup_with_pppd and set > it > >> up. We could include some example configuration like this in the > pppd > >> package though. > >> > >> 2) A PPPoE server. We don't need that in core. > >> > >> With pppd, the PPPoE protocol is handled in the kernel (while > >> rp-pppoe does it in userspace), so pppd probably has less overhead > >> anyway. > >> > >> I vote for db-move rp-pppoe core extra. > > > > I can't give any comments on that. I really don't use it and have > never > > used it. > > > > I trust your statement. Any complains about moving to extra? If no, > you > > can move it. > > Maybe we should ask the users who actually use it - see if there is > any rational reason they *depend* on it as opposed to pppd Hi, Please keep this package in core. It's very easy to use and helps a lot when you need connection from cd. Direct pppd usage is harder if you have no internet access to get documentation. Keeping rp-pppoe in core cd is very convenient so please consider keeping it. Thank you in advance, Hussam.
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
