Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mx1.tetrasec.net [66.245.176.36])
	by nld3-dev1.alpinelinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0D8782BBF
	for <~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org>; Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mx1.tetrasec.net (mail.local [127.0.0.1])
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C37592D4;
	Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:30 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [172.17.48.222] (68-187-202-164.dhcp.ahvl.nc.charter.com [68.187.202.164])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
	 key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256)
	(No client certificate requested)
	(Authenticated sender: nangel@tetrasec.net)
	by mx1.tetrasec.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D11B2592D3;
	Fri, 20 Mar 2020 17:41:29 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <12638474be4928d083a0e73436f16ec66d560a9d.camel@alpinelinux.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed change: drop busybox iproute2, always use real iproute2
From: Nathan Angelacos <nangel@alpinelinux.org>
To: Ariadne Conill <ariadne@dereferenced.org>, Natanael Copa
	 <ncopa@alpinelinux.org>
Cc: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 13:41:29 -0400
In-Reply-To: <9afce4b2f8604239f2a4f28648b88eae@dereferenced.org>
References: <20200320095843.0d7d5fad@ncopa-desktop.copa.dup.pw>
	 <e6bc9817f0e78e797cd83f5e189791f2@dereferenced.org>
	 <9afce4b2f8604239f2a4f28648b88eae@dereferenced.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.0 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2020-03-20 at 17:02 +0000, Ariadne Conill wrote:
> 
> As responses are overwhelmingly not in favor of the proposal, I would
> say that it lacks consensus.  Therefore, I am not going to pursue it
> in Alpine further at this time.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ariadne


I agree that iproute2 is overkill for simple cases, but I'm also one of
those that installs iproute2 as the first step in setting up a new box.

We already offer choices in setup-alpine for NTP and SSH servers, could
we offer the option for iproute?