Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 10:21:10 +0200
From: Timo Teras <timo.teras@iki.fi>
To: "Ariadne Conill" <ariadne@dereferenced.org>
Cc: ~alpine/devel@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: Proposed change: drop busybox iproute2, always use real
 iproute2
Message-ID: <20200320102110.565ad389@vostro.wlan>
In-Reply-To: <e6bc9817f0e78e797cd83f5e189791f2@dereferenced.org>
References: <e6bc9817f0e78e797cd83f5e189791f2@dereferenced.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

On Fri, 20 Mar 2020 07:29:55 +0000
"Ariadne Conill" <ariadne@dereferenced.org> wrote:

> I would like to propose that we drop busybox iproute2, in favor of
> always using real iproute2.
> 
> The primary reasons are:
> 
> - Real iproute2 has significantly advanced by comparison to the
>   busybox implementation.  While the busybox implementation is
>   passable for basic tasks, it is lacking for more advanced
>   tasks.
> - Because of this, many tutorials concerning iproute2 provide
>   advice that is not particularly useful to our default iproute2
>   implementation.
> - Because of that, many people recommend installing real iproute2
>   anyway.
> 
> Providing real iproute2 and removing the busybox implementation
> results in approximately 1.4MiB increase in the base image.
> 
> However, I think we get a *lot* for that 1.4MiB -- iproute2 can
> potentially replace ifenslave and other utilities as well, but
> we will need to adjust some of our ifupdown addon scripts to
> handle this.  In general, I think it is a good move for us in
> general, especially with the work being done to enable service
> isolation in VRFs and network namespaces that is underway.  By
> switching the default implementation, users will be able to make
> use of these features out of the box.
> 
> I would like to implement this next week before freeze if nobody
> objects.

I understand this makes perfect sense for routers, firewalls and even
some network appliances.

However, for embedded setups like RPis, and similar, this can be an
unnecessary weight.

I personally would not do this. It also opens the same reasoning for
other busybox tools. Most of the utilities there are reduced in
functionality somehow. And there's specific target groups that the real
version is preferred and needed. That's why we make them available.

In other words, I'd rather not do this. But if majority thinks
otherwise, then sure.

I would hope that many comment/vote on this.

Thanks,
Timo