On Wed, 2008-01-16 at 14:30 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 10:27:39AM +0000, Roy Marples wrote: > > That's the sell, but it also doesn't match all the SoC requirements. > >1) It does not interact with the kernel DHCP part in any way. > > IMO this is a weak requirement anyway. It would be nice if it can get > thte lease from the kernel at start time, but it shouldn't strictly be > necessary. It can re-request the lease based on how the interface is currently configured using the -r option. It does not do this by default. That should be satisfactory. > >2) It does not interact with WLAN keys in any way or form (and shouldn't > > either imo) > > It should only be able to deal with link changes. Hmmmm. I disagree here. Link managers, such as wpa_supplicant, should call a generic network script to say "link up/down" and then either configure static ip or do dhcp. Gentoo uses this approach very well. Although I am slightly biased as I wrote that part of Gentoo ;) This is going outside the scope of this discussion though. > >3) It's marginally bigger than 10k on i386. > > That's ok. > > Thanks, I'll take a look at the code. Great! It's currently being re-formatted so that it looks good in editors that don't use my vim rules though. Thanks Roy