Re: ppp-udeb

[Goswin von Brederlow <brederlo@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 12:43:48AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> writes:
> > 
> > > On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 03:10:15AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > No plugins support means that some PPP over ATM DSL connections will
> > > > not work (but one or more extra packages would be needed anyway).
> > > 
> > > Sorry to be late about this, but i think that removing plugin support is
> > > not so nice, especially as you then loose pppoatm support, and this
> > > would mean no installation over pppoatm ADSL modems.
> > > 
> > > And yes, i plan to somehow make the unicorn drivers available as udebs,
> > > altough i don't know yet how i will achieve that and since they are
> > > non-free, they cannot go into the official medias.
> > 
> > If thats the only one and the size is different you should build a
> > ppp-atm udeb for it. I would like to have a floppy set with dsl
> > (userspace or kernel pppoe, whichever works and is smaller) support so
> > space is at a premium.
> 
> Most french ISP uses pppoatm, and not pppoe, so it will hardly be
> usefull here.

Thats not the point. If the only use for the plugin support is
pppoatm and it only works with a nonfree driver your bloating ppp-udeb
for something that can't even be released together.

Providing a ppp-atm.udeb alongside a dsl-unicorn.udeb on the other
hand would solve the plugin problem and save space.

But aren't the plugins needed for kernel mode pppoe too? Its been a
long time since I used kernel mode and back then it was via
plugin. Since the kernel already comes with pppoe module using kernel
mode is probably less space.

MfG
        Goswin