On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Steven Chamberlain (2014-08-20):
>> On 14/08/14 18:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
>> > Now, I think there are several questions to answer:
>> > 1. What were the reasons for having arch-dependent dhcp clients?
>>
>> I'd speculate because udhcpc
Steven Chamberlain (2014-08-20):
> On 14/08/14 18:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Now, I think there are several questions to answer:
> > 1. What were the reasons for having arch-dependent dhcp clients?
>
> I'd speculate because udhcpc from busybox is very small, and
> isc-dhcp-client-udeb was ab
On 14/08/14 18:32, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Now, I think there are several questions to answer:
> 1. What were the reasons for having arch-dependent dhcp clients?
I'd speculate because udhcpc from busybox is very small, and
isc-dhcp-client-udeb was about 2 MiB. It targets (currently only builds
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 07:32:22PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Now, I think there are several questions to answer:
> 1. What were the reasons for having arch-dependent dhcp clients?
> 2. Are those reasons still valid?
>
> => Maybe think about moving to a single client if possible, at le
Hi,
Steven Chamberlain (2014-08-13):
> On 13/08/14 18:05, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > What I'd like to get figured out is what changed between images that
> > weren't hitting this problem, and the newly published ones.
>
> What changed is dhclient from isc-dhcp-client-udeb gained a signal
> handl
5 matches
Mail list logo
