Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 15:13:30 +0200 From: Tomek CEDRO <tomek@cedro.info> To: Scott <uatka3z4zagp@thismonkey.com>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) Message-ID: <CAFYkXjm_smbDBw4o%2B=H9u1G39BPmEYWD-kb9%2BLwcT-vcX7SAUg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ZkYD_MKm6lWiwohI@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> References: <Zh2S1zV3nQz5VCS-@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org> <ZkTEpJEwL/MzwUKW@thismonkey.com> <ZkYD_MKm6lWiwohI@ilythia.eden.le-fay.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 3:03=E2=80=AFPM Lexi Winter <lexi@le-fay.org> wrote= : > (..) > almost anything would be useful for someone, somewhere. for example, > i'd quite like to see a basic Wayland compositor (such as hikari) and a > terminal emulator in the base system, because that's a bit nicer to use > than vt(4) if you just need to occasionally manage a system via the > framebuffer console. i feel fairly confident to say that this would be > useful to a greater number of people than an implementation of RIP. If that takes around 10MB its worth considering.. may be helpful for visual oci management :-) > would people objecting to the removal of routed also advocate for > putting window(1) back into base? (this is not a rhetorical question, > 'yes' is a perfectly reasonable answer.) The subtle difference between "removing RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d)" and "[base->ports] moving RIP/RIPng (routed/route6d) to ports" :-) Have a good day folks :-) --=20 CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFYkXjm_smbDBw4o%2B=H9u1G39BPmEYWD-kb9%2BLwcT-vcX7SAUg>